Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Well, that would make the function more complicated, but maybe it's a
>> better answer. On the other hand, we know that the stats updates are
>> delivered in a deterministic order, so why not simply replace the
>> existing test in the wait function with one that looks for the truncation
>> updates? If we've gotten those, we must have gotten the earlier ones.
> I'm not sure if that's actually true with parallel mode. I'm pretty
> sure the earlier workers will have terminated before the later ones
> start, but is that enough to guarantee that the stats collector sees
> the messages in that order?
Huh? Parallel workers are read-only; what would they be doing sending
any of these messages?
regards, tom lane