| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: parallelize queries containing subplans |
| Date: | 2017-01-12 14:26:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JbuRkkMOQ=iiAmWMiAgVC8sK8dbs6iZpbMrVp0dmW=Vg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> The other alternative is to remember this information in SubPlan. We
>> can retrieve parallel_safe information from best_path and can use it
>> while generating SubPlan. The main reason for storing it in the plan
>> was to avoid explicitly passing parallel_safe information while
>> generating SubPlan as plan was already available at that time.
>> However, it seems there are only two places in code (refer
>> build_subplan) where this information needs to be propagated. Let me
>> know if you prefer to remember the parallel_safe information in
>> SubPlan instead of in Plan or if you have something else in mind?
>
> I think we should try doing it in the SubPlan, at least, and see if
> that comes out more elegant than what you have at the moment.
>
Okay, done that way. I have fixed the review comments raised by Dilip
as well and added the test case in attached patch.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| pq_pushdown_subplan_v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 9.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-12 14:29:38 | Re: BUG: pg_stat_statements query normalization issues with combined queries |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-01-12 14:25:15 | Re: [PATCH] Fix minor race in commit_ts SLRU truncation vs lookups |