| From: | "Hou, Zhijie" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...) |
| Date: | 2021-01-26 10:29:49 |
| Message-ID: | d688f35b97924def8d39e383154bee7f@G08CNEXMBPEKD05.g08.fujitsu.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I think we can allow parallel insert in this case, because the column value
> is determined according to the DEFAULT definition of the target table
> specified in the INSERT statement. This is described here:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/sql-createtable.html
>
> "Defaults may be specified separately for each partition. But note that
> a partition's default value is not applied when inserting a tuple through
> a partitioned table."
>
> So the parallel-unsafe function should not be called.
Thanks for the explanation.
I think you are right, I did miss it.
Best regards,
houzj
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | japin | 2021-01-26 10:37:33 | Re: Support ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... ADD/DROP PUBLICATION ... syntax |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2021-01-26 10:23:29 | Re: automatic analyze: readahead - add "IO read time" log message |