Re: SerializeParamList vs machines with strict alignment - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: SerializeParamList vs machines with strict alignment
Date
Msg-id 12777.1538452350@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SerializeParamList vs machines with strict alignment  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: SerializeParamList vs machines with strict alignment  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:08 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Also, I believe
>> that coding the test this way makes the leader send the param values to
>> multiple workers, which would flush out any problems with serializing a
>> value multiple times.  As against that, there's a hazard that the number
>> of workers might not be stable ...

> Yeah, I was actually more worried about instability part, but now I
> have tested it on both windows and centos machine and the test passes,
> so I am okay with that.  However, I feel if we want to go with that,
> there is actually no need of statement "SET force_parallel_mode=1".

OK, I hadn't tested to see if that could be dropped, but if it can,
then we don't need it.  The EXPLAIN is enough to ensure that the
test is doing what we want.  (I think we could drop the savepoint
too, no?)

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: SerializeParamList vs machines with strict alignment
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query