Greg, Not sure whether you're working on this or not?
If so, what do you think of the slightly modified syntax I proposed? I'm fairly keen on getting this patch completed fairly early on in the 8.4 cycle because it allows a new class of concurrent test case. I think many people will be happy to submit concurrent test cases once the syntax is known. That seems likely to reveal a few bugs we've not seen before, especially when we are able to get that into the build farm. It seems prudent to do that as early as possible so we have time to fix the many bugs that emerge, some of them port specific. Would you like any help? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 15:18 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 17:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > What seems possibly more useful is to reintroduce \cwait (or hopefully > > some better name) and give it the semantics of "wait for a response from > > any active connection; switch to the first one to respond, printing its > > name, and print its result". > > > > This would lead to code like, say, > > > > \c& conn1 > > \c& conn2 > > ... > > \S conn1 > > CREATE INDEX ... \g& > > \S conn2 > > CREATE INDEX ... \g& > > ... > > \cwait > > \cwait > > > > The number of \cwaits you need is exactly equal to the number of > > async commands you've issued. For regression testing purposes > > you'd need to design the script to ensure that only one of the > > connections is expected to respond next, but that seems necessary > > anyway --- and you don't need any extra checks to catch the case > > that you get an unexpected early response from another one. > > > > Hmm, this still seems a bit notation-heavy, doesn't it? What if \g& > > takes an arg indicating which connection to issue the command on: > > > > \c& conn1 > > \c& conn2 > > ... > > CREATE INDEX ... \g& conn1 > > CREATE INDEX ... \g& conn2 > > ... > > \cwait > > \cwait > > > > Not totally sure about that one, but issuing a command on a background > > connection seems appealing for scripting purposes. It eliminates the > > risk that the query response comes back before you manage to switch away > > from the connection; which would be bad because it would mess up your > > count of how many cwait's you need. It seems a bit more analogous to > > the use of & in shell scripts, too, where you implicitly fork away from > > the async command. (Maybe c& shouldn't make the new connection > > foreground either?) > > Yes, I think the \g& conn syntax seems useful. Good thinking. > > I agree also that the \S syntax has problems and we would wish to avoid > them. I would still like a way to change the default background session. > That will considerably reduce the number of changes people would need to > make to long scripts in order to be able to use this facility. > > For example, if we have a script with 100 commands in, we may find that > commands 1-50 and 51-100 are in two groups. Commands 1-50 are each > dependent upon the previous command, as are 51-100. But the two groups > are independent of each other. > > If we use the \g& syntax only, we would need to make 100 changes to the > script to send commands to the right session. If we had the capability > to say "use this background session as the default session to send > commands to", then we would be able to add parallelism to the script by > just making 2 changes: one prior to command 1 and one prior to command > 51. > > The original \S command had that capability, but was designed to > actually change into that session, giving the problems discussed. > Something like \S (don't care what syntax, though) would definitely > simplify scripting, which I think will translate directly into fewer > bugs for users. > > I note \b is available... short for "background". Though I really don't > care what we call that command though, just want the capability. > > Also, I don't want to have to count cwaits, so I'd like a command to say > "wait for all background sessions that have active statements" and for > that to be the default. For simplicity, \cwait would do this by default. > > So this script > > \c& conn1 > \c& conn2 > ... > ALTER TABLE ... ADD PRIMARY KEY \g& conn1 > ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY \g& conn1 > ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY \g& conn1 > ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY \g& conn1 > ... > > ALTER TABLE ... ADD PRIMARY KEY \g& conn2 > ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY \g& conn2 > ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY \g& conn2 > ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY \g& conn2 > ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY \g& conn2 > ... > > \cwait > \cwait > > would now become > > \c& conn1 > \c& conn2 > ... > \b conn1 > ALTER TABLE ... ADD PRIMARY KEY ... > ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY > ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY > ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY > ... > > \b conn2 > ALTER TABLE ... ADD PRIMARY KEY ... > ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY > ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY > ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY > ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY > ... > > \cwait > > Which seems much cleaner. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
