Hi, On 2017-02-15 08:48:44 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > We got rid of the major existing use of page locks in > 6d46f4783efe457f74816a75173eb23ed8930020, which extirpated them from > hash indexes, and I was kind of hoping they could go away altogether, > but we can't do that as long as GIN is using them.
Learned a new word today. > Anyway, if we solve those problems, we can allow inserts (not updates > or deletes, those have other problems, principally relating to combo > CIDs) in parallel mode, which would make it possible to allow the > kinds of things you are asking about here. I don't think general INSERTs are safe, if you consider unique indexes and foreign keys (both setting xmax in the simple cases and multixacts are likely to be problematic). > The other way of fixing this problem is to have each worker generate a > subset of the tuples and funnel them all back to the leader through a > Gather node; the leader then does all the inserts. That avoids having > to solve the problems mentioned above, but it probably doesn't perform > nearly as well. I think it'd already be tremendously useful however. I think it'd not be an unreasonable first step. It'd be a good fallback that'd be useful for !insert and such anyway. Regards, Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers