On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Antonin Houska wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Antonin Houska wrote:
>> >> During my experiments with parallel workers I sometimes saw the "master"
>> >> and
>> >> worker pro
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Antonin Houska wrote:
> >> During my experiments with parallel workers I sometimes saw the "master"
> >> and
> >> worker process blocked. The master uses shm queue to send data to the
>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Antonin Houska wrote:
>> During my experiments with parallel workers I sometimes saw the "master" and
>> worker process blocked. The master uses shm queue to send data to the worker,
>> both sides nowait==false.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Antonin Houska wrote:
> During my experiments with parallel workers I sometimes saw the "master" and
> worker process blocked. The master uses shm queue to send data to the worker,
> both sides nowait==false. I concluded that the following happened:
>
> The worker
During my experiments with parallel workers I sometimes saw the "master" and
worker process blocked. The master uses shm queue to send data to the worker,
both sides nowait==false. I concluded that the following happened:
The worker process set itself as a receiver on the queue after
shm_mq_wait_i
