On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> As Amit says, what remains is the case where fork() fails or the
> worker dies before it reaches the line in ParallelWorkerMain that
> reads shm_mq_set_sender(mq, MyProc). In those cases, no error will be
> signaled until you call WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish(). If you wait
> prior to that point for a number of workers equal to
> nworkers_launched, you will wait forever in those cases.
Another option might be to actually call
WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish() in place of a condition variable or
barrier, as Amit suggested at one point.
> I am going to repeat my previous suggest that we use a Barrier here.
> Given the discussion subsequent to my original proposal, this can be a
> lot simpler than what I suggested originally. Each worker does
> BarrierAttach() before beginning to read tuples (exiting if the phase
> returned is non-zero) and BarrierArriveAndDetach() when it's done
> sorting. The leader does BarrierAttach() before launching workers and
> BarrierArriveAndWait() when it's done sorting. If we don't do this,
> we're going to have to invent some other mechanism to count the
> participants that actually initialize successfully, but that seems
> like it's just duplicating code.
I think that this closes the door to leader non-participation as
anything other than a developer-only debug option, which might be
fine. If parallel_leader_participation=off (or some way of getting the
same behavior through a #define) is to be retained, then an artificial
wait is required as a substitute for the leader's participation as a
worker.
--
Peter Geoghegan
