On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm busy with other things, so no rush. > > Got it. > > There is one question that I should probably get clarity on ahead of > the next revision, which is: Should I rip out the code that disallows > a "degenerate parallel CREATE INDEX" when > parallel_leader_participation=off, or should I instead rip out any > code that deals with parallel_leader_participation, and always have > the leader participate as a worker? > > If I did the latter, then leader non-participation would live on as a > #define debug option within nbtsort.c. It definitely seems like we'd > want to preserve that at a minimum.
Hmm, I like the idea of making it a #define instead of having it depend on parallel_leader_participation. Let's do that. If the consensus is later that it was the wrong decision, it'll be easy to change it back. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
