Re: Proposed refactoring of planner header files

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 3:17 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'm really unhappy that force_parallel_mode and
>> parallel_leader_participation are being treated as planner GUCs.

> The only use of parallel_leader_participation at plan time seems to be
> to twiddle the costing, and the use of it in the executor is to decide
> whether to have the leader participate. So if the values differ,
> you'll get a plan running a behavior for which plan selection was not
> optimized. I don't know whether it's useful to intentionally allow
> this so that you can see how the same plan behaves under the other
> setting, or whether it's just a wart we'd be better off without. It
> might be confusing, though, if you change the setting and it doesn't
> force a replan.

Well, that puts it at the ill-considered end of the spectrum instead
of the outright-broken end, but I still say it's a bad idea. Planner
GUCs ought to control the produced plan, not other behaviors.

regards, tom lane