Re: assessing parallel-safety - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: assessing parallel-safety
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmob5f6YuTChEnezXZnfR5XihEO1B2T94rRGokPpi0KD+mg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: assessing parallel-safety  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: assessing parallel-safety  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we have to go this way, then isn't it better to evaluate the same
> when we are trying to create parallel path (something like in the
> parallel_seq scan patch - create_parallelscan_paths())?

Probably not, because many queries will scan multiple relations, and
we want to do all of this work just once per query.  Also, when
somebody adds another parallel node (e.g. parallel hash join) that
will need this same information.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thom Brown
Date:
Subject: Re: Index-only scans for GiST.
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Index-only scans for GiST.