On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 4:52 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Other than that, looks good to me. It's a simple patch with a clear purpose. >> >> Committed. > > Cool. > > Clarity on what I should do about parallel_leader_participation in the > next revision would be useful at this point. You seem to either want > me to remove it from consideration entirely, or to remove the code > that specifically disallows a "degenerate parallel CREATE INDEX". I > need a final answer on that.
Right. I do think that we should do one of those things, and I lean towards removing it entirely, but I'm not entirely sure. Rather than making an executive decision immediately, I'd like to wait a few days to give others a chance to comment. I am hoping that we might get some other opinions, especially from Thomas who implemented parallel_leader_participation, or maybe Amit who has been reviewing recently, or anyone else who is paying attention to this thread. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
