On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> During debugging I found that subplan created for below part of the >>> query is parallel_unsafe, Is it a problem or there is some explanation >>> of why it's not parallel_safe, >> >> Okay, so basically we don't have any mechanism to perform parallel >> scan on CTE. And, IMHO subplan built for CTE (using SS_process_ctes) >> must come along with CTE scan. So I think we can avoid setting below >> code because we will never be able to test its side effect, another >> argument can be that if we don't consider the final effect, and just >> see this subplan then by logic it should be marked parallel-safe or >> unsafe as per it's path and it will not have any side effect, as it >> will finally become parallel-unsafe. So it's your call to keep it >> either way. >> > > Yeah, actually setting parallel_safety information for subplan from > corresponding is okay. However, in this particular case as we know > that it might not be of any use till we enable parallelism for CTE > Scan (and doing that is certainly not essential for this project). > So, I have set parallel_safe as false for CTE subplans. >
Moved this patch to next CF. -- 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
