Re: Parallel execution and prepared statements
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Parallel execution and prepared statements |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoaN3ycWmCaYCTtX9_5AcH9m1A=pPZ-kKh9xE9kU66NXhA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Parallel execution and prepared statements (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Parallel execution and prepared statements
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 6:24 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Robert, do you have any better ideas for this problem? >> >> Not really. I think your prepared_stmt_parallel_query_v2.patch is >> probably the best approach proposed so far, but I wonder why we need >> to include DestCopyOut and DestTupleStore. DestIntoRel and >> DestTransientRel both write to an actual relation, which is a problem >> for parallel mode, but I think the others don't. >> > > I have tried to restrict all the non-readonly operation modes or modes > where parallelism might not make sense like DestTupleStore. If we > want to just prohibit the cases where it can fail now, then I think > prohibiting only DestIntoRel should be sufficient because that is a > case where the user is allowed to do DDL for an already prepared read > only statement like Create Table AS .. EXECUTE. OK, then my vote is to do it that way for now. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: