On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>> > Erm, my thought was to use a select() loop which sends out I/O requests
>> > and then loops around waiting to see who finishes it. It doesn't
>> > parallelize the CPU cost of getting the rows back to the caller, but
>> > it'd at least parallelize the I/O, and if what's underneath is actually
>> > a remote FDW running a complex query (because the other side is actually
>> > a view), it would be a massive win to have all the remote FDWs executing
>> > concurrently instead of serially as we have today.
>>
>> I can't really make sense of this.
>
> Sorry, that was a bit hand-wavey since I had posted about it previously
> here:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20131104032604.GB2706@tamriel.snowman.net
Huh, somehow I can't remember reading that... but I didn't think I had
missed any posts, either. Evidently I did.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company