Re: assessing parallel-safety
| От | Amit Kapila |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: assessing parallel-safety |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA4eK1JQOfG+jfxfh6nAGbj9QoKro3_x6n2FZZ3=vD8QVdW6+Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: assessing parallel-safety (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: assessing parallel-safety
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think we may want a dedicated parallel-safe property for functions
> rather than piggybacking on provolatile, but that will probably also
> be changeable via ALTER FUNCTION, and stored rules won't get
> miraculously updated. So this definitely can't be something we figure
> out at parse-time ... it's got to be determined later. But at the
> moment I see no way to do that without an extra pass over the whole
> rewritten query tree. :-(
>
>
>
> I think we may want a dedicated parallel-safe property for functions
> rather than piggybacking on provolatile, but that will probably also
> be changeable via ALTER FUNCTION, and stored rules won't get
> miraculously updated. So this definitely can't be something we figure
> out at parse-time ... it's got to be determined later. But at the
> moment I see no way to do that without an extra pass over the whole
> rewritten query tree. :-(
>
If we have to go this way, then isn't it better to evaluate the same
when we are trying to create parallel path (something like in the
parallel_seq scan patch - create_parallelscan_paths())?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: