Re: using custom scan nodes to prototype parallel sequential scan

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: using custom scan nodes to prototype parallel sequential scan
Date: 2014-11-13 00:30:22
Message-ID: CAB7nPqTHhSsWnV3S9JrUjPwbqp8mDzGgYz7fuiujUjfgEG0s9g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> wrote:
>> Isn't provolatile = PROVOLATILE_IMMUTABLE sufficient?
>
> There are certainly things that are parallel-safe that are not
> immutable. It might be the case that everything immutable is
> parallel-safe.
FWIW, when working on the concept of expression and clause
shippability for Postgres-XC (aka the possibility to pass it safely to
another backend, but in another PG node in this case), we discussed
similar things and if I recall correctly we even discussed about
adding a flag to pg_proc to define if a function was shippable or not.
Finally what we finished with was not adding a new flag and use as
rule that all the immutable functions can be safely shipped, and
others not, even some stable functions that *could* be safe. Maybe
Ashutosh has more comments on that, my memory may be failing.
In the end, I think that you would finish with something similar.
My 2c.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-11-13 00:30:51 On the warpath again about ill-considered inclusion nests
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2014-11-13 00:20:17 Re: Teaching pg_dump to use NOT VALID constraints