On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Well, that would make the function more complicated, but maybe it's a >>> better answer. On the other hand, we know that the stats updates are >>> delivered in a deterministic order, so why not simply replace the >>> existing test in the wait function with one that looks for the truncation >>> updates? If we've gotten those, we must have gotten the earlier ones. > >> I'm not sure if that's actually true with parallel mode. I'm pretty >> sure the earlier workers will have terminated before the later ones >> start, but is that enough to guarantee that the stats collector sees >> the messages in that order? > > Huh? Parallel workers are read-only; what would they be doing sending > any of these messages?
Mumble. I have no idea what's happening here. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
