From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Tobias Bussmann <t(dot)bussmann(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel execution and prepared statements |
Date: | 2016-12-01 16:10:49 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaN3ycWmCaYCTtX9_5AcH9m1A=pPZ-kKh9xE9kU66NXhA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 6:24 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Robert, do you have any better ideas for this problem?
>>
>> Not really. I think your prepared_stmt_parallel_query_v2.patch is
>> probably the best approach proposed so far, but I wonder why we need
>> to include DestCopyOut and DestTupleStore. DestIntoRel and
>> DestTransientRel both write to an actual relation, which is a problem
>> for parallel mode, but I think the others don't.
>>
>
> I have tried to restrict all the non-readonly operation modes or modes
> where parallelism might not make sense like DestTupleStore. If we
> want to just prohibit the cases where it can fail now, then I think
> prohibiting only DestIntoRel should be sufficient because that is a
> case where the user is allowed to do DDL for an already prepared read
> only statement like Create Table AS .. EXECUTE.
OK, then my vote is to do it that way for now.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-12-01 16:14:58 | Re: Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes |
Previous Message | Vladimir Rusinov | 2016-12-01 15:29:07 | s/xlog/wal/ in tools and function names? |