Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Is there some reason why hash and nestloop are safe but merge isn't?
>
> > I think it is because we consider to pushdown hash and nestloop to workers,
> > but not merge join and the reason for not pushing mergejoin is that
> > currently we don't have executor support for same, more work is needed
> > there.
>
> If that's true, then mergejoin paths ought to be marked parallel-unsafe
> explicitly (with a comment as to why), not just silently reduced to degree
> zero in a manner that looks more like an oversight than anything
> intentional.
>
> I also note that the regression tests pass with this patch and parallel
> mode forced, which seems unlikely if allowing a parallel worker to execute
> a join works for only two out of the three join types.  And checking the
> git history for nodeHashjoin.c, nodeHash.c, and nodeNestloop.c shows no
> evidence that any of those files have been touched for parallel query,
> so it's pretty hard to see a reason why those would work in parallel
> queries but nodeMergejoin.c not.
>