| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Enabling parallelism for queries coming from SQL or other PL functions |
| Date: | 2017-02-27 06:51:38 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaOUsfm5uBJR1PJEqB0jme4_2XYUEX838dc=rNLhrmT8g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Is there any easy way to find out which way is less expensive?
No. But that's a separate problem. I'm just saying we shouldn't
arbitrarily prohibit parallelism for parallel-safe functions.
> Even
> if we find some way or just make a rule that when an outer query uses
> parallelism, then force function call to run serially, how do we
> achieve that I mean in each worker we can ensure that each
> individual statements from a function can run serially (by having a
> check of isparallelworker() in gather node), but having a similar
> check in the master backend is tricky or maybe we don't want to care
> for the same in master backend. Do you have any suggestions on how to
> make it work?
I don't understand what's wrong with the existing logic in standard_planner().
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-02-27 06:53:04 | Re: I propose killing PL/Tcl's "modules" infrastructure |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-02-27 06:46:29 | Re: DROP FUNCTION of multiple functions |