| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 15:53:29 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZHWC7pcNTgw+bHPvG=R3NSKnScN7N6ckVo_Q0Jp4D2aA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.
OK, committed. I think we can argue about parallelModeNeeded as a
separate matter. That's merely a sideshow as far as this patch is
concerned.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-07-01 15:55:07 | Re: fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-07-01 15:39:02 | Re: ToDo: API for SQL statement execution other than SPI |