On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:09 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-06-03 12:13:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 12:48 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In the above case, even though we are executing a single command from
> > > the user perspective, but the currentCommandId will be four after the
> > > command. One increment will be for the copy command and the other
> > > three increments are for locking tuple in PK table
> > > (tab_fk_referenced_chk) for three tuples in FK table
> > > (tab_fk_referencing_chk). Now, for parallel workers, it is
> > > (theoretically) possible that the three tuples are processed by three
> > > different workers which don't get synced as of now. The question was
> > > do we see any kind of problem with this and if so can we just sync it
> > > up at the end of parallelism.
>
> > I strongly disagree with the idea of "just sync(ing) it up at the end
> > of parallelism". That seems like a completely unprincipled approach to
> > the problem. Either the command counter increment is important or it's
> > not. If it's not important, maybe we can arrange to skip it in the
> > first place. If it is important, then it's probably not OK for each
> > backend to be doing it separately.
>
> That scares me too. These command counter increments definitely aren't
> unnecessary in the general case.
>
Yeah, this is what we want to understand? Can you explain how they
are useful here? AFAIU, heap_lock_tuple doesn't use commandid while
storing the transaction information of xact while locking the tuple.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com