From: | Erwin Brandstetter <brsaweda(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Can functions containing a CTE be PARALLEL SAFE? |
Date: | 2019-10-17 13:13:24 |
Message-ID: | CAGHENJ6dF12ewNS=brvGfafi8tPu6WQ2usati7Occqni-htSnw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Makes sense, thanks for the confirmation.
Maybe clarify in the manual?
Regards
Erwin
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:20 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Erwin Brandstetter <brsaweda(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> The following operations are always parallel restricted.
> >> - Scans of common table expressions (CTEs).
>
> > Now I am unsure whether I can use `PARALLEL SAFE` for functions
> containing
> > a CTE (while fulfilling all other criteria)?
>
> AFAIR, the reason for treating CTEs as parallel restricted is simply to
> guarantee single evaluation of the CTE. Within a function, that would
> only matter per-function-execution, so I can't see why a function
> containing such a query couldn't be pushed down to workers for execution.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lizeth Solis Aramayo | 2019-10-17 13:46:42 | RE: CVE-2018-1058 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-10-17 12:40:15 | Re: PostgreSQL memory usage |