On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I was thinking about this idea: > >> > >> 1. Add a parallel_aware flag to each plan. > > > > Okay, so shall we add it in generic Plan node or to specific plan nodes > > like SeqScan, IndexScan, etc. To me, it appears that parallelism is > > a node specific property, so we should add it to specific nodes and > > for now as we are parallelising seq scan, so we can add this flag in > > SeqScan node. What do you say? > > I think it should go in the Plan node itself. Parallel Append is > going to need a way to test whether a node is parallel-aware, and > there's nothing simpler than if (plan->parallel_aware). That makes > life simple for EXPLAIN, too. >
Okay, I have updated the patch to make seq scan node parallel aware. To make that happen we need to have parallel_aware flag both in Plan as well as Path, so that we can pass that information from Path to Plan. I think the right place to copy parallel_aware info from path to plan is copy_path_costsize and ideally we should change the name of function to something like copy_generic_path_info(), but for now I have retained it's original name as it is used at many places, let me know if you think we should goahead and change the name of function as well. I have changed Explain as well so that it adds Parallel for Seq Scan if SeqScan node is parallel_aware. I have not integrated it with consider-parallel patch, so that this and Partial Seq Scan version of the patch can be compared without much difficulity. Thoughts? With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
parallel_seqscan_partialseqscan_v25.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
