On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Haribabu Kommi <
kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Amit Kapila <
amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks, I will fix this in next version of patch.
> >
>
> I am posting in this thread as I am not sure, whether it needs a
> separate thread or not?
>
> I gone through the code and found that the newly added funnel node is
> is tightly coupled with
> partial seq scan, in order to add many more parallel plans along with
> parallel seq scan,
> we need to remove the integration of this node with partial seq scan.
>
This assumption is wrong, Funnel node can execute any node beneath
it (Refer ExecFunnel->funnel_getnext->ExecProcNode, similarly you
can see exec_parallel_stmt). Yes, currently nodes supported under
Funnel nodes are limited like partialseqscan, result (due to reasons
mentioned upthread like readfuncs.s doesn't have support to read Plan
nodes which is required for worker backend to read the PlannedStmt,
ofcourse we can add them, but as we are supportting parallelism for
limited nodes, so I have not enhanced the readfuncs.c) but in general
the basic infrastructure is designed such a way that it can support
other nodes beneath it.
> To achieve the same, I have the following ideas.
>
>
> Execution:
> The funnel execution varies based on the below plan node.
> 1) partial scan - Funnel does the local scan also and returns the tuples
> 2) partial agg - Funnel does the merging of aggregate results and
> returns the final result.
>
Basically Funnel will execute any node beneath it, the Funnel node itself
is not responsible for doing local scan or any form of consolidation of
results, as of now, it has these 3 basic properties
– Has one child, runs multiple copies in parallel.
– Combines the results into a single tuple stream.
– Can run the child itself if no workers available.
> Any other better ideas to achieve the same?
>
Refer slides 16-19 in Parallel Sequential Scan presentation in PGCon
I don't have very clear idea what is the best way to transform the nodes
in optimizer, but I think we can figure that out later unless majority people
see that as blocking factor.
Thanks for looking into patch!
