Re: fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels
Date: 2016-06-30 17:13:12
Message-ID: 9378.1467306792@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

BTW, I just had another thought about reducing the cost of
has_parallel_hazard checks, to wit: you already made one pass over the
entire query to verify that there's no PARALLEL UNSAFE functions anywhere.
If that pass were to also track whether there are any PARALLEL RESTRICTED
functions anywhere, then in very many common cases, subsequent tests on
portions of the query would not have to do anything, because we'd already
know there was nothing to worry about.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2016-06-30 20:18:00 Re: WIP: About CMake v2
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-06-30 16:04:35 Re: fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels