RE: Parallel Inserts (WAS: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks..)
От | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com |
---|---|
Тема | RE: Parallel Inserts (WAS: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks..) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | OS0PR01MB57168172E6D5B6EE2FC3528194EC9@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Parallel Inserts (WAS: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks..) (Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Parallel Inserts (WAS: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks..)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday, July 30, 2021 2:52 PM Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 4:02 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Besides, I think we need a new default value about parallel dml > > > safety. Maybe 'auto' or 'null'(different from > > > safe/restricted/unsafe). Because, user is likely to alter the safety > > > to the default value to get the automatic safety check, a independent default > > > value can make it more clear. > > > > > > > Hmm, but auto won't work for partitioned tables, right? If so, that > > might appear like an inconsistency to the user and we need to document > > the same. Let me summarize the discussion so far in this thread so > > that it is helpful to others. > > > > To avoid that inconsistency, UNSAFE could be the default for partitioned tables > (and we would disallow setting AUTO for these). > So then AUTO is the default for non-partitioned tables only. I think this approach is reasonable, +1. Best regards, houzj
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: