Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1+6SX482mh1bGUqqOGh=N5vcoTcByD2+GOW6ovsi4FVdA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > > + /* > + * We need a write barrier to make sure the update of > + * parallel_terminate_count is done before the store to in_use > + */ > > Does the order actually matter here? > I think so. If slot->in_use is reordered before the check of is_parallel_worker, then it is possible that concurrent registration of worker can mark the is_parallel_worker as false before we check the flag here. See explanation in previous e-mail [1]. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1%2BQ_DdJ28qXYSHZiBKNf2MY1QFrv5XAOAw4ZXHw4TPMxA%40mail.gmail.com -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: