Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?
Date
Msg-id 4D6776C2020000250003B026@gw.wicourts.gov
Whole thread Raw
In response to wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Given that we've decided to run the modifying sub-queries all with
> the same command counter ID, they are logically executing "in
> parallel".
> Just run the main plan and let it pull tuples from the CTEs as
> needed.
On the face of it, that sounds like it has another benefit you
didn't mention -- it sounds like it's much more conducive to
allowing parallel processing, if (when?) we eventually move in that
direction.  It might even be a good case for an initial, limited
implementation.
-Kevin


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?
Next
From: Yeb Havinga
Date:
Subject: Re: Sync Rep v17