Re: [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Maybe parallel_aware should have more than two values, depending
>> on whether the result of the node is context-dependent or not.

> It seems likely the whole concept of parallel_aware is only only a
> zero-order approximation to what we really want.

Yeah, I agree --- but it's also clear that we don't yet know what it
should be. We'll have to work that out as we accrete more functionality.

In the meantime, I think what we should do is commit the bug fix more or
less as I have it, and then work on Amit's concern about losing parallel
efficiency by separating the resetting of shared parallel-scan state
into a new plan tree traversal that's done before launching new worker
processes. The only real alternative is to lobotomize the existing rescan
optimizations, and that seems like a really poor choice from here.

regards, tom lane