Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

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+TgmobPKA9Fdco3OnwduVcL4zdHkbeMf4LpMwY7SuWNTjFgVQ@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  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 1:45 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we don't want to go with the upperrel logic, then maybe we should
> consider just merging some of the other changes from my previous patch
> in 0003* patch you have posted and then see if it gets rid of all the
> cases where we are seeing a regression with this new approach.

Which changes are you talking about?

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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Next
From: Eren Başak
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Optional message to user when terminating/cancelling backend