Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20171103012443.GA18797@marmot обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> I'm going to make an item on my personal TODO list for that. No useful >> insights on that right now, though. > >I decided to try that, but it didn't really work: fd.h gets included >by front-end code, so I can't very well define a struct and declare >functions that deal in dsm_segment and slock_t. On the other hand it >does seem a bit better to for these shared file sets to work in terms >of File, not BufFile. Realistically, fd.h has a number of functions that are really owned by buffile.c already. This sounds fine. > That way you don't have to opt in to BufFile's >double buffering and segmentation schemes just to get shared file >clean-up, if for some reason you want direct file handles. Is that something that you really think is possible? -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: