Re: why not parallel seq scan for slow functions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: why not parallel seq scan for slow functions
Date: 2017-11-06 03:37:56
Message-ID: 14748.1509939476@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> This looks like it's on the right track to me. I hope Tom will look
> into it, but if he doesn't I may try to get it committed myself.

I do plan to take a look at it during this CF.

> + /* Set or update cheapest_total_path and related fields */
> + set_cheapest(current_rel);

> I wonder if it's really OK to call set_cheapest() a second time for
> the same relation...

It's safe enough, we do it in some places already when converting
a relation to dummy. But having to do that in a normal code path
suggests that something's not right about the design ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-11-06 03:43:34 Re: Early locking option to parallel backup
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-11-06 03:33:05 Re: Display number of heap accesses for index scans