From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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: | 2017-02-24 05:03:25 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Jo8XOoCV=h9FJRQyiQWcqSyetSd3T7NEVv14CREHvoqQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Few more comments.
>> 1.I don't see any check in the code which will prevent the parallel
>> execution of the query inside a function if its called from a DML
>> statement.
>> e.g. If we use a function in the update statement's which has the
>> select statement.
>
> Having said that, I am thinking do we really need to block such cases?
> It just looks fine to me that an update statement calls a function (in
> targetlist or condition), which launches a bunch of workers for the
> internal query inside PL; finishes the work and shutdown them, only
> after this, the update will change any record. So basically I want to
> make a point that between the worker launch and shutdown there is no
> change in the database state.
>
+1. I also think you are right that there should not be a problem in
such a case.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Venkata B Nagothi | 2017-02-24 05:11:40 | Re: Range Partitioning behaviour - query |
Previous Message | Ashutosh Sharma | 2017-02-24 04:41:41 | Re: Should we cacheline align PGXACT? |