|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|Cc:||David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: executor relation handling|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> On 2018/10/04 5:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think that we ought to adjust parallel query to insist that children
>> do take locks, and then revert the IsParallelWorker() exceptions I made
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't the necessary adjustment just
> that the relations are opened with locks if inside a parallel worker?
Yeah, that's one plausible way to fix it. I hadn't wanted to prejudge
the best way before we finish the other changes, though.
> I've rebased the remaining patches. I broke down one of the patches into
> 2 and re-ordered the patches as follows:
Thanks, will start looking at these today.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Geoff Winkless||2018-10-04 14:46:26||Re: Poor plan when using EXISTS in the expression list|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2018-10-04 13:59:51||Re: SerializeParamList vs machines with strict alignment|