Re: [HACKERS] parallelize queries containing subplans
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] parallelize queries containing subplans |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1+TqMziczzBUf0X2x3vTctTguu_QdfzRgjyQ_+o8PB-Xw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] parallelize queries containing subplans (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: >>> During debugging I found that subplan created for below part of the >>> query is parallel_unsafe, Is it a problem or there is some explanation >>> of why it's not parallel_safe, >> >> Okay, so basically we don't have any mechanism to perform parallel >> scan on CTE. And, IMHO subplan built for CTE (using SS_process_ctes) >> must come along with CTE scan. So I think we can avoid setting below >> code because we will never be able to test its side effect, another >> argument can be that if we don't consider the final effect, and just >> see this subplan then by logic it should be marked parallel-safe or >> unsafe as per it's path and it will not have any side effect, as it >> will finally become parallel-unsafe. So it's your call to keep it >> either way. >> > > Yeah, actually setting parallel_safety information for subplan from > corresponding is okay. > missed the word *path* in above sentence. /corresponding/corresponding path -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: