Re: Parallel Inserts (WAS: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks..) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Nancarrow
Subject Re: Parallel Inserts (WAS: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks..)
Date
Msg-id CAJcOf-cq_jUaJU=9F1SRbj820cKbhB70rC+FTvTaVM6rACdtnw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Parallel Inserts (WAS: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks..)  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses RE: Parallel Inserts (WAS: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks..)  ("houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 4:02 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Besides, I think we need a new default value about parallel dml safety. Maybe
> > 'auto' or 'null'(different from safe/restricted/unsafe). Because, user is
> > likely to alter the safety to the default value to get the automatic safety
> > check, a independent default value can make it more clear.
> >
>
> Hmm, but auto won't work for partitioned tables, right? If so, that
> might appear like an inconsistency to the user and we need to document
> the same. Let me summarize the discussion so far in this thread so
> that it is helpful to others.
>

To avoid that inconsistency, UNSAFE could be the default for
partitioned tables (and we would disallow setting AUTO for these).
So then AUTO is the default for non-partitioned tables only.

Regards,
Greg Nancarrow
Fujitsu Australia



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: Record a Bitmapset of non-pruned partitions