Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Marko Tiikkaja" <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?
Date: 2011-02-25 15:30:42
Message-ID: 4D6776C2020000250003B026@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Given that we've decided to run the modifying sub-queries all with
> the same command counter ID, they are logically executing "in
> parallel".

> Just run the main plan and let it pull tuples from the CTEs as
> needed.

On the face of it, that sounds like it has another benefit you
didn't mention -- it sounds like it's much more conducive to
allowing parallel processing, if (when?) we eventually move in that
direction. It might even be a good case for an initial, limited
implementation.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Yeb Havinga 2011-02-25 15:41:56 Re: Sync Rep v17
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-02-25 15:25:06 Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?