Re: [HACKERS] COPY (query) TO ... doesn't allow parallelism - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [HACKERS] COPY (query) TO ... doesn't allow parallelism
Date
Msg-id 20170601164650.o4vamwuruaat343e@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] COPY (query) TO ... doesn't allow parallelism  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] COPY (query) TO ... doesn't allow parallelism  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2017-06-01 21:37:56 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2017-06-01 21:23:04 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> On a related note, I think it might be better to have an
> >> IsInParallelMode() check in this case as we have at other places.
> >> This is to ensure that if this command is invoked via plpgsql function
> >> and that function runs is the parallel mode, it will act as a
> >> safeguard.
> >
> > Hm? Which other places do it that way?  Isn't standard_planner()
> > centralizing such a check?
> >
> 
> heap_insert->heap_prepare_insert, heap_update, heap_delete, etc.

Those aren't comparable, they're not invoking the planner - and all the
places that set PARALLEL_OK don't check for it.  The relevant check for
planning is in standard_planner().

- Andres



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
Date:
Subject: Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256
Next
From: Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256