Re: [HACKERS] CREATE TABLE with parallel workers, 10.0? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] CREATE TABLE with parallel workers, 10.0?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobRbV=Q5jY2M9UzXh2o2qR=935fPeOJ-Y3Y5Uxvr-Q3oA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] CREATE TABLE with parallel workers, 10.0?  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> 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 or creating multixacts - I
think - but there's definitely a problem if an INSERT can lead to the
creation of a new combo CID, because we have no way at present of
transmitting the new combo CID mapping to the workers, and if a worker
sees a combo CID for which it doesn't have a mapping, the world blows
up.  Do you think an insert can trigger combo CID creation?

(Of course, now that we've got DSA, it wouldn't be nearly as hard to
fix the combo CID synchronization problem.)

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should we cacheline align PGXACT?
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Possible issue with expanded object infrastructure onPostgres 9.6.1