Re: pgsql: Add a new GUC and a reloption to enable inserts in parallel-mode
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: Add a new GUC and a reloption to enable inserts in parallel-mode |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20210323202958.GA18316@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Add a new GUC and a reloption to enable inserts in parallel-mode (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql: Add a new GUC and a reloption to enable inserts in parallel-mode
Re: pgsql: Add a new GUC and a reloption to enable inserts in parallel-mode |
Список | pgsql-committers |
On 2021-Mar-23, Robert Haas wrote: > Likewise, the XXX comment you added to max_parallel_hazard_walker > claims that some of the code introduced there is to compensate for an > unspecified bug in the rewriter. I'm a bit skeptical that the comment > is correct, and there's no way to find out because the comment doesn't > say what the bug supposedly is, but let's just say for the sake of > argument that it's true. Well, you *could* have fixed the bug, but > instead you hacked around it, and in a relatively expensive way that > affects every query with a CTE in it whether it can benefit from this > patch or not. That's not a responsible way of maintaining the core > PostgreSQL code. I think the CTE bug is this one: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAJcOf-fAdj=nDKMsRhQzndm-O13NY4dL6xGcEvdX5Xvbbi0V7g@mail.gmail.com while I can't disagree with the overall conclusion that it seems safer to revert parallel INSERT/SELECT given the number of alleged problems, it is true that this bug exists, and has gone unfixed. -- Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: