Re: pgsql: Add a new GUC and a reloption to enable inserts in parallel-mode
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: Add a new GUC and a reloption to enable inserts in parallel-mode |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1KtgifoMY3QzkS2mVZskB3sHmuau3N0KbVayegc=AQq0w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Add a new GUC and a reloption to enable inserts in parallel-mode (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql: Add a new GUC and a reloption to enable inserts in parallel-mode
|
Список | pgsql-committers |
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 2:00 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2021-Mar-23, Robert Haas wrote: > > > Likewise, the XXX comment you added to max_parallel_hazard_walker > > claims that some of the code introduced there is to compensate for an > > unspecified bug in the rewriter. I'm a bit skeptical that the comment > > is correct, and there's no way to find out because the comment doesn't > > say what the bug supposedly is, but let's just say for the sake of > > argument that it's true. Well, you *could* have fixed the bug, but > > instead you hacked around it, and in a relatively expensive way that > > affects every query with a CTE in it whether it can benefit from this > > patch or not. That's not a responsible way of maintaining the core > > PostgreSQL code. > > I think the CTE bug is this one: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAJcOf-fAdj=nDKMsRhQzndm-O13NY4dL6xGcEvdX5Xvbbi0V7g@mail.gmail.com > > while I can't disagree with the overall conclusion that it seems safer > to revert parallel INSERT/SELECT given the number of alleged problems, > Agreed. I'll revert the patch and respond to some of the points here with my thoughts. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: