Re: Parallel Seq Scan - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Parallel Seq Scan
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+8h6KEdjZwJO8i7EbVC5w+wFQYZtg66Xj0o1zpTg_Zkw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Parallel Seq Scan  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: Parallel Seq Scan
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>
> On 20-01-2015 PM 11:29, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Note - I have yet to handle the new node types introduced at some
> > of the places and need to verify prepared queries and some other
> > things, however I think it will be good if I can get some feedback
> > at current stage.
> >
>
> I got an assertion failure:
>
> In src/backend/executor/execTuples.c: ExecStoreTuple()
>
> /* passing shouldFree=true for a tuple on a disk page is not sane */
> Assert(BufferIsValid(buffer) ? (!shouldFree) : true);
>

Good Catch!
The reason is that while master backend is scanning from a heap
page, if it finds another tuple/tuples's from shared memory message
queue it will process those tuples first and in such a scenario, the scan
descriptor will still have reference to buffer which it is using from scanning
from heap.  Your proposed fix will work.

> After fixing this, the assertion failure seems to be gone though I
> observed the blocked (CPU maxed out) state as reported elsewhere by Thom
> Brown.
>

Does it happen only when parallel_seqscan_degree > max_worker_processes?


Thanks for checking the patch.


With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: Partitioning: issues/ideas (Was: Re: On partitioning)
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel Seq Scan