Re: Enabling parallelism for queries coming from SQL or other PL functions

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Enabling parallelism for queries coming from SQL or other PL functions
Date: 2017-02-27 06:51:38
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaOUsfm5uBJR1PJEqB0jme4_2XYUEX838dc=rNLhrmT8g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Is there any easy way to find out which way is less expensive?

No. But that's a separate problem. I'm just saying we shouldn't
arbitrarily prohibit parallelism for parallel-safe functions.

> Even
> if we find some way or just make a rule that when an outer query uses
> parallelism, then force function call to run serially, how do we
> achieve that I mean in each worker we can ensure that each
> individual statements from a function can run serially (by having a
> check of isparallelworker() in gather node), but having a similar
> check in the master backend is tricky or maybe we don't want to care
> for the same in master backend. Do you have any suggestions on how to
> make it work?

I don't understand what's wrong with the existing logic in standard_planner().

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-02-27 06:53:04 Re: I propose killing PL/Tcl's "modules" infrastructure
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-02-27 06:46:29 Re: DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions