Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs)
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYpJnM5vZC2BHS5mKXiDfk-xei=aZJuaAV1qDyTOcWztQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs)  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> A query with FOR UPDATE/SHARE will be considered parallel unsafe in
> has_parallel_hazard_walker() and root->glob->parallelModeOK will be marked
> false. This implies that none of the base relations and hence join relations
> will be marked as consider_parallel. IIUC your logic, none of the queries
> with FOR UPDATE/SHARE will get a local path which is marked parallel_safe
> and thus join will not be pushed down. Why do you think we need to skip
> paths that aren't parallel_safe? I have left aside this change in the latest
> patches.

I changed this back before committing but, ah nuts, you're right.  Sigh.  Sorry.

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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Haribabu Kommi
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_hba_lookup function to get all matching pg_hba.conf entries
Next
From: Kouhei Kaigai
Date:
Subject: Re: Way to check whether a particular block is on the shared_buffer?