| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(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: | 2015-01-10 00:14:25 |
| Message-ID: | 54B06EE1.2030805@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/9/15, 3:34 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * 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.
Yeah, debugging is my concern as well. You're working on a query, you expect it to be using parallelism, and EXPLAIN is showing it's not. Now you're scratching your head.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2015-01-10 00:19:51 | Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs (Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API) |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-01-10 00:02:32 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers |