| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hou, Zhijie" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Tang, Haiying" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...) |
| Date: | 2021-03-04 09:06:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-tvUEmOGMWKeZxDN2rDK0epq_kW0=F1tahZeWn5OS+PSQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 9:03 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I think for Update/Delete, we might not do parallel-safety checks by
> calling target_rel_max_parallel_hazard_recurse especially because
> partitions are handled differently for Updates and Deletes (see
> inheritance_planner()). I think what Dilip is telling doesn't sound
> unreasonable to me. So, even, if we want to extend it later by making
> some checks specific to Inserts/Updates, we can do it at that time.
> The comments you have at that place are sufficient to tell that in the
> future we can use those checks for Updates as well. They will need
> some adjustment if we remove that check but the intent is clear.
+1
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2021-03-04 09:07:13 | Re: Extend more usecase for planning time partition pruning and init partition pruning. |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-03-04 09:05:10 | Re: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...) |