| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: assessing parallel-safety |
| Date: | 2015-02-12 16:37:32 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob5f6YuTChEnezXZnfR5XihEO1B2T94rRGokPpi0KD+mg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> If we have to go this way, then isn't it better to evaluate the same
> when we are trying to create parallel path (something like in the
> parallel_seq scan patch - create_parallelscan_paths())?
Probably not, because many queries will scan multiple relations, and
we want to do all of this work just once per query. Also, when
somebody adds another parallel node (e.g. parallel hash join) that
will need this same information.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-02-12 16:40:40 | Re: Index-only scans for GiST. |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2015-02-12 15:37:27 | Re: Index-only scans for GiST. |