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

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 1:44 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> In general, for the non-partitioned table, where we don't have much
> overhead of checking the parallel safety and invalidation is also not
> a big problem so I am tempted to provide an automatic parallel safety
> check.  This would enable parallelism for more cases wherever it is
> suitable without user intervention.  OTOH, I understand that providing
> automatic checking might be very costly if the number of partitions is
> more.  Can't we provide some mid-way where the parallelism is enabled
> by default for the normal table but for the partitioned table it is
> disabled by default and the user has to set it safe for enabling
> parallelism?  I agree that such behavior might sound a bit hackish.

I think that's basically the proposal that Amit and I have been discussing.

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