| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: make Gather node projection-capable |
| Date: | 2015-10-22 17:38:36 |
| Message-ID: | 50274.1445535516@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The Gather node, as currently committed, is neither projection-capable
> nor listed as an exception in is_projection_capable_plan. Amit
> discovered this in testing, and I hit it in my testing as well. We
> could just mark it as being not projection-capable, but I think it
> might be better to go the other way and give it projection
> capabilities.
Um ... why would you not want the projections to happen in the child
nodes, where they could be parallelized? Or am I missing something?
> While that's not the end of the world, it seems to needlessly fly in
> the face of the general principle that nodes should generally try to
> support projection.
I'm not sure there is any such principle.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | YUriy Zhuravlev | 2015-10-22 17:40:48 | Re: clearing opfuncid vs. parallel query |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-10-22 17:25:52 | Re: clearing opfuncid vs. parallel query |