On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:30 AM Hou, Zhijie <houzj.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> > > I think it makes sense.
> > >
> > > And if the check about ' ins_cmd == xxx1 || ins_cmd == xxx2' may be
> > > used in some places, How about define a generic function with some comment
> > to mention the purpose.
> > >
> > > An example in INSERT INTO SELECT patch:
> > > +/*
> > > + * IsModifySupportedInParallelMode
> > > + *
> > > + * Indicates whether execution of the specified table-modification
> > > +command
> > > + * (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE) in parallel-mode is supported, subject to
> > > +certain
> > > + * parallel-safety conditions.
> > > + */
> > > +static inline bool
> > > +IsModifySupportedInParallelMode(CmdType commandType) {
> > > + /* Currently only INSERT is supported */
> > > + return (commandType == CMD_INSERT); }
> >
> > The intention of assert is to verify that those functions are called for
> > appropriate commands such as CTAS, Refresh Mat View and so on with correct
> > parameters. I really don't think so we can replace the assert with a
> > function
> > like above, in the release mode assertion will always be true. In a way,
> > that assertion is for only debugging purposes. And I also think that when
> > we as the callers know when to call those new functions, we can even remove
> > the assertions, if they are really a problem here. Thoughts?
> Hi
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> If the check about command type is only used in assert, I think you are right.
> I suggested a new function because I guess the check can be used in some
> other places.
> Such as:
>
> + /* Okay to parallelize inserts, so mark it. */
> + if (ins_cmd == PARALLEL_INSERT_CMD_CREATE_TABLE_AS)
> + ((DR_intorel *) dest)->is_parallel = true;
>
> + if (ins_cmd == PARALLEL_INSERT_CMD_CREATE_TABLE_AS)
> + ((DR_intorel *) dest)->is_parallel = false;
We need to know exactly what is the command in above place, to
dereference and mark is_parallel to true, because is_parallel is being
added to the respective structures, not to the generic _DestReceiver
structure. So, in future the above code becomes something like below:
+ /* Okay to parallelize inserts, so mark it. */
+ if (ins_cmd == PARALLEL_INSERT_CMD_CREATE_TABLE_AS)
+ ((DR_intorel *) dest)->is_parallel = true;
+ else if (ins_cmd == PARALLEL_INSERT_CMD_REFRESH_MAT_VIEW)
+ ((DR_transientrel *) dest)->is_parallel = true;
+ else if (ins_cmd == PARALLEL_INSERT_CMD_COPY_TO)
+ ((DR_copy *) dest)->is_parallel = true;
In the below place, instead of new function, I think we can just have
something like if (fpes->ins_cmd_type != PARALLEL_INSERT_CMD_UNDEF)
> Or
>
> + if (fpes->ins_cmd_type == PARALLEL_INSERT_CMD_CREATE_TABLE_AS)
> + pg_atomic_add_fetch_u64(&fpes->processed,
> queryDesc->estate->es_processed);
>
> If you think the above code will extend the ins_cmd type check in the future,
> the generic function may make sense.
We can also change below to fpes->ins_cmd_type != PARALLEL_INSERT_CMD_UNDEF.
+ if (fpes->ins_cmd_type == PARALLEL_INSERT_CMD_CREATE_TABLE_AS)
+ receiver = ExecParallelGetInsReceiver(toc, fpes);
If okay, I will modify it in the next version of the patch.
With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
