| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Date: | 2015-01-09 21:34:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20150109213422.GJ3062@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Stefan Kaltenbrunner (stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc) wrote:
> On 01/09/2015 08:01 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Now, for debugging purposes, I could see such a parameter being
> > available but it should default to 'off/never-fail'.
>
> not sure what it really would be useful for - if I execute a query I
> would truely expect it to get answered - if it can be made faster if
> done in parallel thats nice but why would I want it to fail?
I was thinking for debugging only, though I'm not really sure why you'd
need it if you get a NOTICE when you don't end up with all the workers
you expect.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-01-09 21:40:41 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE and RLS |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-01-09 21:25:13 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE and RLS |