Re: Parallel copy - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Fetter
Subject Re: Parallel copy
Date
Msg-id 20200218151148.GL24870@fetter.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Parallel copy  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Parallel copy
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 06:51:29PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 5:59 PM Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 12:20, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This is something similar to what I had also in mind for this idea.  I
> > > had thought of handing over complete chunk (64K or whatever we
> > > decide).  The one thing that slightly bothers me is that we will add
> > > some additional overhead of copying to and from shared memory which
> > > was earlier from local process memory.  And, the tokenization (finding
> > > line boundaries) would be serial.  I think that tokenization should be
> > > a small part of the overall work we do during the copy operation, but
> > > will do some measurements to ascertain the same.
> >
> > I don't think any extra copying is needed.
> 
> I am talking about access to shared memory instead of the process
> local memory.  I understand that an extra copy won't be required.

Isn't accessing shared memory from different pieces of execution what
threads were designed to do?

Best,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ants Aasma
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel copy
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Marking some contrib modules as trusted extensions