Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 7:51 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Among the above options, I would personally prefer (b) mainly because
> of the consistent handling for partition and non-partition table cases
> but I am fine with approach (a) as well if that is what other people
> feel is better.
>
> Thoughts?
>

I personally think "(b) provide an option to the user to specify
whether inserts can be parallelized on a relation" is the preferable
option.
There seems to be too many issues with the alternative of trying to
determine the parallel-safety of a partitioned table automatically.
I think (b) is the simplest and most consistent approach, working the
same way for all table types, and without the overhead of (a).
Also, I don't think (b) is difficult for the user. At worst, the user
can use the provided utility-functions at development-time to verify
the intended declared table parallel-safety.
I can't really see some mixture of (a) and (b) being acceptable.

Regards,
Greg Nancarrow
Fujitsu Australia