| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw vs. force_parallel_mode on ppc |
| Date: | 2016-02-22 20:36:48 |
| Message-ID: | 16754.1456173408@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:
>> Foreign tables are supposed to be categorically excluded from
>> parallelism. Not sure why that's not working in this instance.
BTW, I wonder where you think that's supposed to be enforced, because
I sure can't find any such logic.
I suppose that has_parallel_hazard() would be the logical place to
notice foreign tables, but it currently doesn't even visit RTEs,
much less contain any code to check if their tables are foreign.
Or did you have another place in mind to do that?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Álvaro Hernández Tortosa | 2016-02-22 22:12:24 | Re: about google summer of code 2016 |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2016-02-22 19:44:35 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing - V18 |