On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 4:52 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Other than that, looks good to me. It's a simple patch with a clear purpose.
>>
>> Committed.
>
> Cool.
>
> Clarity on what I should do about parallel_leader_participation in the
> next revision would be useful at this point. You seem to either want
> me to remove it from consideration entirely, or to remove the code
> that specifically disallows a "degenerate parallel CREATE INDEX". I
> need a final answer on that.
Right. I do think that we should do one of those things, and I lean
towards removing it entirely, but I'm not entirely sure. Rather
than making an executive decision immediately, I'd like to wait a few
days to give others a chance to comment. I am hoping that we might get
some other opinions, especially from Thomas who implemented
parallel_leader_participation, or maybe Amit who has been reviewing
recently, or anyone else who is paying attention to this thread.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
