Re: fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Don't have time to re-read this right now, but maybe tomorrow or
>>> Saturday.
>
>> OK, thanks.
>
> There's still the extra-word problem here:
>
> +        * If the input rel is marked consider_parallel and there's nothing
> +        * that's not parallel-safe in the LIMIT clause, then the final_rel is
> +        * can be marked consider_parallel as well.
>
> Other than that, and the quibble over initialization of
> parallelModeNeeded, I'm good with this.

OK, committed.  I think we can argue about parallelModeNeeded as a
separate matter.  That's merely a sideshow as far as this patch is
concerned.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company