Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> I've not really followed this thread, and just caught up to here. It
> seems entirely unacceptable to not acquire locks on workers to me.
> Maybe I'm missing something, but why do/did the patches in this thread
> require that / introduce that? We didn't have that kind of concept
> before, no? The group locking stuff should rely / require that kind of
> thing, no?
I'm possibly confused, but I thought that the design of parallel query
involved an expectation that workers didn't need to get their own locks.
What we've determined so far in this thread is that workers *do* get
their own locks (or did before yesterday), but I'd been supposing that
that was accidental not intentional.
In any case, I definitely intend that they will be getting their own
locks again after the dust has settled. Panic not.
regards, tom lane
