Re: [ANNOUNCE] IMCS: In Memory Columnar Store for PostgreSQL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: [ANNOUNCE] IMCS: In Memory Columnar Store for PostgreSQL
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+rwxm-8hyN5UmoapHxh6VoGBYBRaN+JahcTsS6Gf-RFw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [ANNOUNCE] IMCS: In Memory Columnar Store for PostgreSQL  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [ANNOUNCE] IMCS: In Memory Columnar Store for PostgreSQL  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:46 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:04 PM, james <james@mansionfamily.plus.com> wrote:
>> The point remains that you need to duplicate it into every process that
>> might
>> want to use it subsequently, so it makes sense to DuplicateHandle into the
>> parent, and then to advertise that  handle value publicly so that other
>> child
>> processes can DuplicateHandle it back into their own process.
>
> Well, right now we just reopen the same object from all of the
> processes, which seems to work fine and doesn't require any of this
> complexity.  The only problem I don't know how to solve is how to make
> a segment stick around for the whole postmaster lifetime.  If
> duplicating the handle into the postmaster without its knowledge gets
> us there, it may be worth considering, but that doesn't seem like a
> good reason to rework the rest of the existing mechanism.

I think one has to try this to see if it works as per the need. If it's not
urgent, I can try this early next week?

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: WITHIN GROUP patch
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: cleanup in code