Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobnFnqWd5P49K4SsBbA8jrLvVYqgoCGU-GQiSN8WSMt7Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> Of course, it would be nice if we could make these counters 64-bit
>> integers, but we can't, because we don't rely on 64-bit reads and
>> writes to be atomic on all platforms.  So instead they'll have to be
>> uint32.  That means they could wrap (if you really work at it) but
>> subtraction will still return the right answer, so it's OK.
>
> OK ...
>
>> If we
>> want to allow the number of parallel workers started to be available
>> for statistical purposes, we can keep to uint32 values for that
>> (parallel_register_count_lo and parallel_register_count_hi, for
>> example), and increment the second one whenever the first one rolls
>> over to zero.
>
> And that's going to be atomic how exactly?

The only process that can look at that structure without taking a lock
is the postmaster.  And the postmaster would only examine
parallel_register_count_lo.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered