| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels |
| Date: | 2016-06-29 17:26:02 |
| Message-ID: | 21370.1467221162@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Huh? The final tlist would go with the final_rel, ISTM, not the scan
>> relation. Maybe we have some rejiggering to do to make that true, though.
> Mumble. You're right that there are two rels involved, but I think
> I'm still right about the substance of the problem. I can't tell
> whether the remainder of your email concedes that point or whether
> we're still in disagreement.
Well, I was trying to find a way that we could rely on the rel's
consider_parallel marking rather than having to test the pathtarget as
such, but I concluded that we couldn't do that. Sorry if thinking
out loud confused you.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-29 17:27:52 | Re: fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-06-29 17:00:50 | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |