Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Huh? The final tlist would go with the final_rel, ISTM, not the scan
>> relation. Maybe we have some rejiggering to do to make that true, though.
> Mumble. You're right that there are two rels involved, but I think
> I'm still right about the substance of the problem. I can't tell
> whether the remainder of your email concedes that point or whether
> we're still in disagreement.
Well, I was trying to find a way that we could rely on the rel's
consider_parallel marking rather than having to test the pathtarget as
such, but I concluded that we couldn't do that. Sorry if thinking
out loud confused you.
regards, tom lane