Re: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...)
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1JSBWTvzaac0+LrbPoT-4GGiDsw2r=0gn=Gb1+J-qJv7w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...)  (Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:44 PM Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:45 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 7:52 AM Hou, Zhijie <houzj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > > > I may be wrong, and if I miss sth in previous mails, please give me some
> > > > hints.
> > > > > IMO, serial insertion with underlying parallel SELECT can be
> > > > > considered for foreign table or temporary table, as the insertions only
> > > > happened in the leader process.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't think we support parallel scan for temporary tables. Can you please
> > > > try once both of these operations without Insert being involved? If you
> > > > are able to produce a parallel plan without Insert then we can see why it
> > > > is not supported with Insert.
> > >
> > > Sorry, may be I did not express it clearly, I actually means the case when insert's target(not in select part)
tableis temporary.
 
> > > And you are right that parallel select is not enabled when temporary table is in select part.
> > >
> >
> > I think Select can be parallel for this case and we should support this case.
> >
>
> So I think we're saying that if the target table is a foreign table or
> temporary table, it can be regarded as PARALLEL_RESTRICTED, right?
>

Yes.

> i.e. code-wise:
>
>         /*
> -        * We can't support table modification in parallel-mode if
> it's a foreign
> -        * table/partition (no FDW API for supporting parallel access) or a
> +        * We can't support table modification in a parallel worker if it's a
> +        * foreign table/partition (no FDW API for supporting parallel
> access) or a
>          * temporary table.
>          */
>         if (rel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_FOREIGN_TABLE ||
>                 RelationUsesLocalBuffers(rel))
>         {
> -               table_close(rel, lockmode);
> -               context->max_hazard = PROPARALLEL_UNSAFE;
> -               return true;
> +               if (max_parallel_hazard_test(PROPARALLEL_RESTRICTED, context))
> +               {
> +                       table_close(rel, lockmode);
> +                       return true;
> +               }
>         }
>

Yeah, these changes look correct to me.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed
Next
From: Sergey Shinderuk
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix detection of pwritev support for OSX.