| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: asynchronous execution |
| Date: | 2017-03-16 20:17:03 |
| Message-ID: | 22644.1489695423@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I reworked the test such that all of the foreign tables inherit from the
> same parent table, and if you query that you do get async execution. But It
> doesn't work when just stringing together those foreign tables with UNION
> ALLs.
> I don't know how to proceed with this review if that was a goal of the
> patch.
Whether it was a goal or not, I'd say there is something either broken
or incorrectly implemented if you don't see that. The planner (and
therefore also the executor) generally treats inheritance the same as
simple UNION ALL. If that's not the case here, I'd want to know why.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-03-16 20:23:59 | Re: ON CONFLICT with constraint name doesn't work |
| Previous Message | Nikolay Samokhvalov | 2017-03-16 20:08:53 | Re: ON CONFLICT with constraint name doesn't work |