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

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 11:46 PM Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, I'd like to have it be automatic, but I don't have a clear idea
how to make that work nicely. It's possible somebody (Tom?) can
suggest something that I'm overlooking, though.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com