| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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: | 2016-06-29 17:27:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYGveXQMjEzZCKP0-V9x2e_cuzmqHVsQWiC1s-Uqj450w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Huh? The final tlist would go with the final_rel, ISTM, not the scan
>>> relation. Maybe we have some rejiggering to do to make that true, though.
>
>> Mumble. You're right that there are two rels involved, but I think
>> I'm still right about the substance of the problem. I can't tell
>> whether the remainder of your email concedes that point or whether
>> we're still in disagreement.
>
> Well, I was trying to find a way that we could rely on the rel's
> consider_parallel marking rather than having to test the pathtarget as
> such, but I concluded that we couldn't do that. Sorry if thinking
> out loud confused you.
OK, no problem. I was arguing from the beginning that we couldn't
make that work, so it sounds like we are now in agreement.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2016-06-29 17:48:08 | Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-29 17:26:02 | Re: fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels |