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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoY6mGWNBJOxYqUFh97BEr=mxZ-+2zULPNt7GYyuZWxe0g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think I understood your concern after some offlist discussion and it
> is primarily due to the inheritance related check which can skip the
> generation of gather paths when it shouldn't.  So what might fit
> better here is a straight check on the number of base rels such that
> allow generating gather path in set_rel_pathlist, if there are
> multiple baserels involved.  I have used all_baserels which I think
> will work better for this purpose.

Yes, that looks a lot more likely to be correct.

Let's see what Tom thinks.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
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: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Simplify ACL handling for large objects and removal ofsuperuser() checks
Next
From: Emre Hasegeli
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Improve geometric types