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

From houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
Subject RE: Parallel Inserts (WAS: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks..)
Date
Msg-id OS0PR01MB57168172E6D5B6EE2FC3528194EC9@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Parallel Inserts (WAS: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks..)  (Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Parallel Inserts (WAS: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks..)  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Friday, July 30, 2021 2:52 PM Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I think this approach is reasonable, +1.

Best regards,
houzj 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: needless complexity in StartupXLOG
Next
From: "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: param 'txn' not used in function maybe_send_schema()