| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: parallel "return query" is no good |
| Date: | 2017-03-23 17:53:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20170323175359.nuuhobdyil7u4fvr@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> I guess the downside of back-patching this is that it could cause a
> plan change for somebody which ends up being worse. On the whole,
> serial execution of queries intended to be run in parallel isn't
> likely to work out well, but it's always possible somebody has a cases
> where it happens to be winning, and this could break it. So maybe I
> should do this only in master? Thoughts?
I think that the chances of someone depending on a parallel plan running
serially by accident which is better than the non-parallel plan, are
pretty slim.
+1 for back-patching.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Sharma | 2017-03-23 17:54:56 | Re: Add pgstathashindex() to get hash index table statistics. |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2017-03-23 17:45:14 | Re: parallel "return query" is no good |