From: | Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Enabling parallelism for queries coming from SQL or other PL functions |
Date: | 2017-03-23 04:41:02 |
Message-ID: | CAOGQiiOt+JvnB5EfBsk-=fk2RikjEGEXdiS7gdrtAv4sfSGT3w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> So couldn't we actually make this test !fcache->returnsSet || !es->lazyEval?
>> That would let us allow parallel execution for all non-set-returning
>> functions, and also for set-returning functions that end up with
>> es->lazyEval set to false.
>
> Yes, this is the right thing to do although we may not enable
> parallelism for any more queries by adding "|| !es->lazyEval". Because
> SELECT are always marked as es->lazyEval=true(And so far we have
> parallelism only for select). But here we calling the parameter to
> ExecutorRun as execute_once so !fcache->returnsSet || !es->lazyEval
> is the correct one and future proof.
>
Agree, done.
--
Regards,
Rafia Sabih
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com/
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
execute-once-v3.patch | application/octet-stream | 16.6 KB |
pl_parallel_opt_support_v3.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-03-23 04:41:26 | Re: Logical decoding on standby |
Previous Message | Ashutosh Sharma | 2017-03-23 04:32:14 | Re: pageinspect and hash indexes |