| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alex Ignatov <a(dot)ignatov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel sec scan in plpgsql |
| Date: | 2016-09-20 15:02:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYegNkjRt=WuGc5r+dfBh8gr+dn7t9mrg3Nnu9MeLhO4g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Maybe it would be better to fix the rule against workers
> invoking their own parallel queries.
That rule does have the advantage of preventing us from having one
user backend launch N^2 workers. I don't think it would be that much
work to fix it, but the results might be pretty exciting.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-20 15:04:49 | Re: Use of SizeOfIptrData - is that obsolete? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-20 15:01:17 | Re: Parallel sec scan in plpgsql |