| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Date: | 2015-09-16 20:10:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobWyp=iRoce=k9aG13m7NSihHRaBdLDZWY+R+LnR+zb5w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 2. I think it's probably a good idea - at least for now, and maybe
>> forever - to avoid nesting parallel plans inside of other parallel
>> plans. It's hard to imagine that being a win in a case like this, and
>> it certainly adds a lot more cases to think about.
>
> I also think that avoiding nested parallel plans is a good step forward.
Doing that as a part of the assess parallel safety patch was trivial, so I did.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-09-16 20:19:55 | Re: Building storage/lwlocknames.h? |
| Previous Message | Christoph Berg | 2015-09-16 20:10:00 | Building storage/lwlocknames.h? |