| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels |
| Date: | 2016-07-01 15:09:03 |
| Message-ID: | 29349.1467385743@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:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Don't have time to re-read this right now, but maybe tomorrow or
>> Saturday.
> OK, thanks.
There's still the extra-word problem here:
+ * If the input rel is marked consider_parallel and there's nothing
+ * that's not parallel-safe in the LIMIT clause, then the final_rel is
+ * can be marked consider_parallel as well.
Other than that, and the quibble over initialization of
parallelModeNeeded, I'm good with this.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-07-01 15:25:42 | Re: EXISTS clauses not being optimized in the face of 'one time pass' optimizable expressions |
| Previous Message | Jean-Pierre Pelletier | 2016-07-01 15:07:32 | The link to download PostgreSQL 9.6 Beta 2 for Windows X64 is broken (The link downloads Beta 1) |