On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, I don't have a good solution for this problem so far. > We might need to improve group locking mechanism for the updating > operation or came up with another approach to resolve this problem. > For example, one possible idea is that the launcher process allocates > vm and fsm enough in advance in order to avoid extending fork relation > by parallel workers, but it's not resolve fundamental problem.
Marked as returned with feedback because of lack of activity and... Feedback provided. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
