On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: >> > Erm, my thought was to use a select() loop which sends out I/O requests >> > and then loops around waiting to see who finishes it. It doesn't >> > parallelize the CPU cost of getting the rows back to the caller, but >> > it'd at least parallelize the I/O, and if what's underneath is actually >> > a remote FDW running a complex query (because the other side is actually >> > a view), it would be a massive win to have all the remote FDWs executing >> > concurrently instead of serially as we have today. >> >> I can't really make sense of this. > > Sorry, that was a bit hand-wavey since I had posted about it previously > here: > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20131104032604.gb2...@tamriel.snowman.net
Huh, somehow I can't remember reading that... but I didn't think I had missed any posts, either. Evidently I did. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
