From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: fixing subplan/subquery confusion |
Date: | 2016-06-30 11:14:13 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Jg_GvaTEjJSaV5vZY6acDmi-B3iXWvdiXa+pUFbnkyTg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> In the appendrel case, I tend to agree that the easiest solution is to
>> scan all the children of the appendrel and just mark the whole thing as
>> not consider_parallel if any of them have unsafe functions.
>>
>
> Thats what I had in mind as well, but not sure which is the best place
> to set it. Shall we do it in set_append_rel_size() after setting the
> size of each relation (after foreach loop) or is it better to do it in
> set_append_rel_pathlist(). Is it better to do it as a separate patch
> or to enhance your patch for this change?
>
I have done it as a separate patch. I think doing it in
set_append_rel_size() has an advantage that we don't need to scan the
child rels separately. If you think that attached patch is on right
lines, then I can add test cases as well.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
set-consider-parallel-append-rels-v1.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2016-06-30 11:56:20 | Re: Re: Should phraseto_tsquery('simple', 'blue blue') @@ to_tsvector('simple', 'blue') be true ? |
Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2016-06-30 10:26:13 | Re: WIP: About CMake v2 |