From: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: parallelize queries containing subplans |
Date: | 2017-01-19 11:53:37 |
Message-ID: | CAGz5QCLZL+PsYdxVZ2BRMQxB=48Xk1-R83D3YpnbvebhvATa=g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> During debugging I found that subplan created for below part of the
>> query is parallel_unsafe, Is it a problem or there is some explanation
>> of why it's not parallel_safe,
>
> Okay, so basically we don't have any mechanism to perform parallel
> scan on CTE. And, IMHO subplan built for CTE (using SS_process_ctes)
> must come along with CTE scan. So I think we can avoid setting below
> code because we will never be able to test its side effect, another
> argument can be that if we don't consider the final effect, and just
> see this subplan then by logic it should be marked parallel-safe or
> unsafe as per it's path and it will not have any side effect, as it
> will finally become parallel-unsafe. So it's your call to keep it
> either way.
Oops, you're right. We don't consider parallelism for RTE_CTE type.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Antonin Houska | 2017-01-19 11:55:29 | Re: PoC: Grouped base relation |
Previous Message | Ashutosh Sharma | 2017-01-19 11:38:05 | Re: pageinspect: Hash index support |