Re: postgres_fdw vs. force_parallel_mode on ppc

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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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