| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: why not parallel seq scan for slow functions |
| Date: | 2017-09-06 20:03:56 |
| Message-ID: | 10287.1504728236@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'm not entirely following. I thought that add_path was set up to treat
>> "can be parallelized" as an independent dimension of merit, so that
>> parallel paths would always survive.
> Here, the Gather path is not parallel-safe, but rather
> parallel-restricted:
Ah, right, the problem is with the Gather not its sub-paths.
>> Might be a tad messy to rearrange things that way.
> Why do you think I wanted you to do it? :-)
I'll think about it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-06 20:49:37 | Re: Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-06 19:54:20 | Re: Fix performance of generic atomics |