Re: COPY (query) TO ... doesn't allow parallelism

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: COPY (query) TO ... doesn't allow parallelism
Date: 2017-06-01 16:46:50
Message-ID: 20170601164650.o4vamwuruaat343e@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-06-01 21:37:56 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > On 2017-06-01 21:23:04 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> On a related note, I think it might be better to have an
> >> IsInParallelMode() check in this case as we have at other places.
> >> This is to ensure that if this command is invoked via plpgsql function
> >> and that function runs is the parallel mode, it will act as a
> >> safeguard.
> >
> > Hm? Which other places do it that way? Isn't standard_planner()
> > centralizing such a check?
> >
>
> heap_insert->heap_prepare_insert, heap_update, heap_delete, etc.

Those aren't comparable, they're not invoking the planner - and all the
places that set PARALLEL_OK don't check for it. The relevant check for
planning is in standard_planner().

- Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Álvaro Hernández Tortosa 2017-06-01 16:58:48 Re: [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256
Previous Message Álvaro Hernández Tortosa 2017-06-01 16:44:42 Re: [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256