Re: Improving planner's checks for parallel-unsafety

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improving planner's checks for parallel-unsafety
Date: 2016-08-18 21:07:47
Message-ID: 25265.1471554467@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I have reviewed this and it looks good to me. My only comment is that
> this comment is slightly confusing:

> ! * Returns the first of PROPARALLEL_UNSAFE, PROPARALLEL_RESTRICTED, or
> ! * PROPARALLEL_SAFE that can be found in the given parsetree. We use this

> "First" might be read to mean "the first one we happen to run across"
> rather than "the earliest in list ordering".

Thanks for the review. I'll reconsider how to phrase that --- have you
any suggestions?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Claudio Freire 2016-08-18 21:10:23 Re: [WIP] [B-Tree] Keep indexes sorted by heap physical location
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2016-08-18 21:04:52 Re: [WIP] [B-Tree] Keep indexes sorted by heap physical location