On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2017-06-03 17:40:08 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> The standard_planner check is sufficient to not generate parallel
>> plans for such statements, but it won't prevent if such commands
>> (which shouldn't be executed by parallel worke
Hi,
On 2017-06-03 17:40:08 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> The standard_planner check is sufficient to not generate parallel
> plans for such statements, but it won't prevent if such commands
> (which shouldn't be executed by parallel workers) are present in
> functions. Consider a hypothetical case
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-06-01 21:37:56 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > On 2017-06-01 21:23:04 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >> On a related note, I think it might be better to have an
>> >> IsInParallelM
On 2017-06-01 15:56:35 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I personally think we should fix this in 9.6 and 10, but I've to admit
> > I'm not entirely impartial, because Citus hit this...
>
> I guess it's a matter of judgement whether you want to call this a bug
> or a missing feature. I wasn't really
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> To me that appears to be an oversight rather than intentional. A
> somewhat annoying one at that, because it's not uncommong to use COPY to
> execute reports to a CSV file and such.
>
> Robert, am I missing a complication?
No, I think that
On 2017-06-01 21:37:56 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-06-01 21:23:04 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> On a related note, I think it might be better to have an
> >> IsInParallelMode() check in this case as we have at other places.
> >> Thi
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-06-01 21:23:04 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On a related note, I think it might be better to have an
>> IsInParallelMode() check in this case as we have at other places.
>> This is to ensure that if this command is invoked via plpgsql
On 2017-06-01 21:23:04 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On a related note, I think it might be better to have an
> IsInParallelMode() check in this case as we have at other places.
> This is to ensure that if this command is invoked via plpgsql function
> and that function runs is the parallel mode, it
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 4:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At the moment $subject doesn't allow parallelism, because copy.c's
> pg_plan_query() invocation doesn't set the CURSOR_OPT_PARALLEL_OK
> flag.
>
> To me that appears to be an oversight rather than intentional.
>
I also don't see any p
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> At the moment $subject doesn't allow parallelism, because copy.c's
> pg_plan_query() invocation doesn't set the CURSOR_OPT_PARALLEL_OK
> flag.
>
> To me that appears to be an oversight rather than intentional. A
> somewhat annoying one at th
Hi,
At the moment $subject doesn't allow parallelism, because copy.c's
pg_plan_query() invocation doesn't set the CURSOR_OPT_PARALLEL_OK
flag.
To me that appears to be an oversight rather than intentional. A
somewhat annoying one at that, because it's not uncommong to use COPY to
execute reports
11 matches
Mail list logo
