On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:23 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> I've marked this as rejected in the commitfest, because others are
> working on a more general solution with parallel workers. That's still
> work-in-progress, and it's not certain if it's going to make it into
> 9.6, but if it does it will largely render this obsolete. We can revisit
> this patch later in the release cycle, if the parallel scan patch hasn't
> solved the same use case by then.
I think the really important issue for this patch is the one discussed here:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoaiJK1svzw_GkFU+zsSxciJKFELqu2AOMVUPhpSFw4BsQ@mail.gmail.com
You raised an important issue there but never really expressed an
opinion on the points I raised, here or on the other thread. And
neither did anyone else except the patch author who, perhaps
unsurprisingly, thinks it's OK. I wish we could get more discussion
about that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
