Re: fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels
Date
Msg-id 9378.1467306792@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
BTW, I just had another thought about reducing the cost of
has_parallel_hazard checks, to wit: you already made one pass over the
entire query to verify that there's no PARALLEL UNSAFE functions anywhere.
If that pass were to also track whether there are any PARALLEL RESTRICTED
functions anywhere, then in very many common cases, subsequent tests on
portions of the query would not have to do anything, because we'd already
know there was nothing to worry about.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: About CMake v2