Re: [HACKERS] CREATE TABLE with parallel workers, 10.0?

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > I don't think general INSERTs are safe, if you consider unique indexes > and foreign keys (both setting xmax in the simple cases and multixacts > are likely to be problematic). There's no real problem with setting xmax

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE TABLE with parallel workers, 10.0?

On 2017-02-15 20:35:16 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > Perhaps, but until we've got a system worked out for having the workers > do the writes, we aren't getting anything. Being able to have the > leader do the writes based on the tuples fed back from the workers is > clearly better than nothing.

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE TABLE with parallel workers, 10.0?

Andres, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-02-15 20:28:43 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > > On February 15, 2017 5:20:20 PM PST, Stephen Frost > > > wrote: > > > >In many cases, I expect this would work just

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE TABLE with parallel workers, 10.0?

On 2017-02-15 20:28:43 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > Andres, > > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > On February 15, 2017 5:20:20 PM PST, Stephen Frost > > wrote: > > >In many cases, I expect this would work just as well, if not better, > > >than trying to

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE TABLE with parallel workers, 10.0?

Andres, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On February 15, 2017 5:20:20 PM PST, Stephen Frost wrote: > >In many cases, I expect this would work just as well, if not better, > >than trying to actually do writes in parallel. > > Why? IPCing tuples around is quite

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE TABLE with parallel workers, 10.0?

On February 15, 2017 5:20:20 PM PST, Stephen Frost wrote: >In many cases, I expect this would work just as well, if not better, >than trying to actually do writes in parallel. Why? IPCing tuples around is quite expensive. Or do you mean because it'll be more suitable

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE TABLE with parallel workers, 10.0?

All, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-02-15 08:48:44 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > The other way of fixing this problem is to have each worker generate a > > subset of the tuples and funnel them all back to the leader through a > > Gather node; the leader then does all the

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE TABLE with parallel workers, 10.0?

Hi, On 2017-02-15 08:48:44 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > We got rid of the major existing use of page locks in > 6d46f4783efe457f74816a75173eb23ed8930020, which extirpated them from > hash indexes, and I was kind of hoping they could go away altogether, > but we can't do that as long as GIN is

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE TABLE with parallel workers, 10.0?

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Joshua Chamberlain > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > (I'm posting to hackers since I got no response on the general list.) > > > > I use Postgres + PostGIS quite heavily,

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE TABLE with parallel workers, 10.0?

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Joshua Chamberlain wrote: > Hello, > > (I'm posting to hackers since I got no response on the general list.) > > I use Postgres + PostGIS quite heavily, and recently have been taking full > advantage of the new parallelism in 9.6. I'm now running

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE TABLE with parallel workers, 10.0?

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 09:24:47PM -0800, Joshua Chamberlain wrote: > Hello, > > (I'm posting to hackers since I got no response on the general > list.) > > I use Postgres + PostGIS quite heavily, and recently have been > taking full advantage of the new parallelism in 9.6. I'm now running >

Re: [HACKERS] CREATE TABLE with parallel workers, 10.0?

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Joshua Chamberlain wrote: > Are there plans in 10.0 to allow parallelism in queries that write, or at > least in "CREATE TABLE AS" queries? (Support in materialized views would be > great, too!) Nope. There are no patches for now. -- Michael