Re: postgres_fdw vs. force_parallel_mode on ppc - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: postgres_fdw vs. force_parallel_mode on ppc
Date
Msg-id 5781.1457105621@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: postgres_fdw vs. force_parallel_mode on ppc  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: postgres_fdw vs. force_parallel_mode on ppc
Re: postgres_fdw vs. force_parallel_mode on ppc
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Sure.  If you have an idea what the right thing to do is, please go
> ahead.

Yeah, I'll modify the patch and commit sometime later today.

> I actually don't have a clear idea what's going on here.  I
> guess it's that the wait_for_stats() guarantees that the stats message
> from the index insertion has been received but the status messages
> from the "trunc" tables might not have gotten there yet.

That's what it looks like to me.  I now think that the apparent
connection to parallel query is a mirage.  The reason we've only
seen a few cases so far is that the flapping test is new: it
wad added in commit d42358efb16cc811, on 20 Feb.  If we left it
as-is, I think we'd eventually see the same failure without forcing
parallel mode.  In fact, that's pretty much what you describe below,
isn't it?  The pg_sleep is sort of half-bakedly substituting for
a proper wait.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbench small bug fix
Next
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_resetxlog reference page reorganization