Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Douglas Doole
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery
Date
Msg-id CADE5jYLQEwxDFHVYRqDnkZQJqCBSs+Hj9s4nMjijO=3L_AJXdg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Buildfarm members with force_parallel_mode=regress are failing now.  I
haven't had a chance to investigate exactly what's going on here, but
I think there are probably several issues:

Not an auspicious beginning for my first patch :-(
 
3. However, even if it did that, it would only affect the leader, not
the workers, because each worker will of course have a separate copy
of each executor state node.  We could fix that by having the Gather
or Gather Merge node also store the bound and propagate that to each
worker via DSM, and then have each worker call pass_down_bound itself.
(This would require a bit of refactoring of the API for
pass_down_bound, but it looks doable.)

From previous experience, pushing the limit to the workers has the potential to be a big win .

In the short run, I'm not sure we have a better alternative than
removing this test - unless somebody has a better idea? - but it would
be good to work on all of the above problems.

I haven't played with parallel mode at all yet. Is it possible to disable force_parallel_mode for the new test? If not, then I'd agree that removing the test is probably the only reasonable short term fix.

- Doug
Salesforce

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CONNECTION LIMIT and Parallel Query don't play welltogether