Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions
Date
Msg-id 14748.1509939476@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> This looks like it's on the right track to me.  I hope Tom will look
> into it, but if he doesn't I may try to get it committed myself.

I do plan to take a look at it during this CF.

> +        /* Set or update cheapest_total_path and related fields */
> +        set_cheapest(current_rel);

> I wonder if it's really OK to call set_cheapest() a second time for
> the same relation...

It's safe enough, we do it in some places already when converting
a relation to dummy.  But having to do that in a normal code path
suggests that something's not right about the design ...
        regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Display number of heap accesses for index scans
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Early locking option to parallel backup