On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 05:44:06PM +0000, Jacob Champion wrote: > On Wed, 2022-03-23 at 16:54 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >> Another option would be to make it a GUC. With a bit of care it could be >> automatically synced by the existing parallelism infrastructure... > > Like a write-once, PGC_INTERNAL setting? I guess I don't have any > intuition on how that would compare to the separate-global-and-accessor > approach. Is the primary advantage that you don't have to maintain the > serialization logic, or is there more to it?
Hmm. That would be a first for a GUC, no? It is not seem natural compared to the other information pieces passed down from the leader to the workers. +extern SharedPort MyProcShared; This naming is interesting, and seems to be in line with a couple of executor structures that share information across workers. Still that's a bit inconsistent as Shared is used once at the beginning and once at the end? I don't have a better idea on top of my mind. Anyway, wouldn't it be better to reverse the patch order, introducing the shared Proc information first and then build the parallel-safe function on top of it? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
