| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety |
| Date: | 2021-07-20 19:00:01 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa-dq1+CcoyteV_DCjCCGux+DgZZVBTECDOvN2j4pz9pQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 1:44 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> In general, for the non-partitioned table, where we don't have much
> overhead of checking the parallel safety and invalidation is also not
> a big problem so I am tempted to provide an automatic parallel safety
> check. This would enable parallelism for more cases wherever it is
> suitable without user intervention. OTOH, I understand that providing
> automatic checking might be very costly if the number of partitions is
> more. Can't we provide some mid-way where the parallelism is enabled
> by default for the normal table but for the partitioned table it is
> disabled by default and the user has to set it safe for enabling
> parallelism? I agree that such behavior might sound a bit hackish.
I think that's basically the proposal that Amit and I have been discussing.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-07-20 19:13:34 | Re: [PATCH] Automatic HASH and LIST partition creation |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-07-20 18:57:38 | Re: refactoring basebackup.c |