On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 6:45 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> FWIW, I don't think that that's really much of a difference.
>>
>> ExecParallelFinish() calls WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish(), which is
>> similar to how _bt_end_parallel() calls
>> WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish() in the patch. The
>> _bt_leader_heapscan() condition variable wait for workers that you
>> refer to is quite a bit like how gather_readnext() behaves. It
>> generally checks to make sure that all tuple queues are done.
>> gather_readnext() can wait for developments using WaitLatch(), to make
>> sure every tuple queue is visited, with all output reliably consumed.
>>
>
> The difference lies in the fact that in gather_readnext, we use tuple
> queue mechanism which has the capability to detect that the workers
> are stopped/exited whereas _bt_leader_heapscan doesn't have any such
> capability, so I think it will loop forever.
_bt_leader_heapscan() can detect when workers exit early, at least in
the vast majority of cases. It can do this simply by processing
interrupts and automatically propagating any error -- nothing special
about that. It can also detect when workers have finished
successfully, because of course, that's the main reason for its
existence. What remains, exactly?
I don't know that much about tuple queues, but from a quick read I
guess you might be talking about shm_mq_receive() +
shm_mq_wait_internal(). It's not obvious that that will work in all
cases ("Note that if handle == NULL, and the process fails to attach,
we'll potentially get stuck here forever"). Also, I don't see how this
addresses the parallel_leader_participation issue I raised.
--
Peter Geoghegan