| From: | Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel Inserts (WAS: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks..) |
| Date: | 2021-07-30 06:52:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAJcOf-cq_jUaJU=9F1SRbj820cKbhB70rC+FTvTaVM6rACdtnw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 4:02 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Besides, I think we need a new default value about parallel dml safety. Maybe
> > 'auto' or 'null'(different from safe/restricted/unsafe). Because, user is
> > likely to alter the safety to the default value to get the automatic safety
> > check, a independent default value can make it more clear.
> >
>
> Hmm, but auto won't work for partitioned tables, right? If so, that
> might appear like an inconsistency to the user and we need to document
> the same. Let me summarize the discussion so far in this thread so
> that it is helpful to others.
>
To avoid that inconsistency, UNSAFE could be the default for
partitioned tables (and we would disallow setting AUTO for these).
So then AUTO is the default for non-partitioned tables only.
Regards,
Greg Nancarrow
Fujitsu Australia
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2021-07-30 07:10:37 | Re: Record a Bitmapset of non-pruned partitions |
| Previous Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-07-30 06:46:54 | RE: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |