| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification |
| Date: | 2016-03-05 20:02:50 |
| Message-ID: | 11209.1457208170@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I think here we should use rel->consider_parallel to set parallel_safe as
>> is done in create_mergejoin_path.
> Well, the "rel" is going to be an upperrel that will have been
> manufactured by fetch_upper_rel, and it will contain no useful
> information about parallelism, so I'm not real sure what that
> would buy.
Ah, after further study I found where this issue is handled for
joinrels. I think you're probably right that it'd be a good idea
to include rel->consider_parallel when setting parallel_safe in
upper paths. In the short term that will have the effect of
marking all upper paths as parallel-unsafe, but that's at least a
safe default that we can improve later.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christoph Berg | 2016-03-05 20:06:56 | Re: Relaxing SSL key permission checks |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-05 19:12:15 | Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification |