Re: INSERT INTO SELECT, Why Parallelism is not selected? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: INSERT INTO SELECT, Why Parallelism is not selected?
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+RL7c_s=+TwAE6DJ1MmupbEiGCFLt97US+DMm6UxAjTA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: INSERT INTO SELECT, Why Parallelism is not selected?  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: INSERT INTO SELECT, Why Parallelism is not selected?
Re: INSERT INTO SELECT, Why Parallelism is not selected?
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 8:06 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 12:32 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 8:37 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I have just notice that the parallelism is off even for the select
> > > part of the query mentioned in the $subject.  I see the only reason it
> > > is not getting parallel because we block the parallelism if the query
> > > type is not SELECT.  I don't see any reason for not selecting the
> > > parallelism for this query.
> >
> > There's a relevant comment near the top of heap_prepare_insert().
> >
>
> I think that is no longer true after commits 85f6b49c2c and 3ba59ccc89
> where we have allowed relation extension and page locks to conflict
> among group members.  We have accordingly changed comments at a few
> places but forgot to update this one.  I will check and see if any
> other similar comments are there which needs to be updated.
>

The attached patch fixes the comments.  Let me know if you think I
have missed anything or any other comments.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: torikoshia
Date:
Subject: Re: Is it useful to record whether plans are generic or custom?
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Volatile Functions in Parallel Plans