Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous execution - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Corey Huinker
Subject Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous execution
Date
Msg-id CADkLM=eHssZhc2tC4t6C=8uGn2LV=NE6LuzavZc3+=mFW0AC0A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous execution  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous execution  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 6:59 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
9e43e87

Patch fails on current master, but correctly applies to 9e43e87. Thanks for including the commit id.

Regression tests pass.

As with my last attempt at reviewing this patch, I'm confused about what kind of queries can take advantage of this patch. Is it only cases where a local table has multiple inherited foreign table children? Will it work with queries where two foreign tables are referenced and combined with a UNION ALL?

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading postmaster's log messages about bind/listen errors