On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> writes: >> I had couple of questions [1] related to that patch. See if you find >> those as relevant? > > I do not think those cases are directly relevant: you're talking about > appendrels not single, unflattened RTE_SUBQUERY rels. >
Right, but still I think we shouldn't leave the appendrel case unattended. > In the subquery case, my view of how it ought to work is that Paths coming > up from the subquery would be marked as not-parallel-safe if they contain > references to unsafe functions. It might be that that doesn't happen for > free, but my guess is that it would already work that way given a change > similar to what I proposed. > This makes sense to me. > In the appendrel case, I tend to agree that the easiest solution is to > scan all the children of the appendrel and just mark the whole thing as > not consider_parallel if any of them have unsafe functions. > Thats what I had in mind as well, but not sure which is the best place to set it. Shall we do it in set_append_rel_size() after setting the size of each relation (after foreach loop) or is it better to do it in set_append_rel_pathlist(). Is it better to do it as a separate patch or to enhance your patch for this change? If you are okay, I can update the patch or write a new one based on what is preferred? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
