Re: Parallel INSERT SELECT take 2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 8:12 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 7:45 AM Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:51 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> > <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I still feel that why we shouldn't limit the declarative approach to
> > > only partitioned tables? And for normal tables, possibly with a
> > > minimal cost(??), the server can do the safety checking. I know this
> > > feels a little inconsistent. In the planner we will have different
> > > paths like: if (partitioned_table) { check the parallel safety tag
> > > associated with the table } else { perform the parallel safety of the
> > > associated objects }.
> > >
> >
> > Personally I think the simplest and best approach is just do it
> > consistently, using the declarative approach across all table types.
> >
>
> Yeah, if we decide to go with a declarative approach then that sounds
> like a better approach.

Agree.

> > > Then, running the pg_get_parallel_safety will have some overhead if
> > > there are many partitions associated with a table. And, this is the
> > > overhead planner would have had to incur without the declarative
> > > approach which we are trying to avoid with this design.
> > >
> >
> > The big difference is that pg_get_parallel_safety() is intended to be
> > used during development, not as part of runtime parallel-safety checks
> > (which are avoided using the declarative approach).
> > So there is no runtime overhead associated with pg_get_parallel_safety().
> >
> > >
> > > I'm thinking that when users say ALTER TABLE partioned_table SET
> > > PARALLEL TO 'safe';, we check all the partitions' and their associated
> > > objects' parallel safety? If all are parallel safe, then only we set
> > > partitioned_table as parallel safe. What should happen if the parallel
> > > safety of any of the associated objects/partitions changes after
> > > setting the partitioned_table safety?
> > >
> >
> > With the declarative approach, there is no parallel-safety checking on
> > either the CREATE/ALTER when the parallel-safety is declared/set.
> > It's up to the user to get it right. If it's actually wrong, it will
> > be detected at runtime.
> >
>
> OTOH, even if we want to verify at DDL time, we won't be able to
> maintain it at the later point of time say if user changed the
> parallel-safety of some function used in check constraint. I think the
> function pg_get_parallel_safety() will help the user to decide whether
> it can declare table parallel-safe. Now, it is quite possible that the
> user can later change the parallel-safe property of some function then
> that should be caught at runtime.

Yeah, this is an unavoidable problem with the declarative approach.

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com