On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
You mentioned that you'll be on vacation for much of July. If you like,
I will take this open item off your hands, since I'll be around and can
de
I wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> You mentioned that you'll be on vacation for much of July. If you like,
>>> I will take this open item off your hands, since I'll be around and can
>>> deal with any bugs that pop up in it.
>> That would be mu
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think a cleaner way is to have set_append_rel_size() invoke
>> set_rel_consider_parallel() on the child rels and then propagate their
>> parallel-unsafety up to the parent. That seems fairly analogous to
>> the way we alr
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, looking elsewhere in set_rel_consider_parallel, isn't there an extra
> "return;" in the tablesample stanza, allpaths.c:541 as of HEAD? Looks to
> me like we're failing to ever treat tablesampling as parallel-safe.
> I'm rather dubious about w
Robert Haas writes:
> I dug into this a bit and found more problems. I wondered why Tom's
> patch did this:
> ! if (has_parallel_hazard((Node *) rte->subquery,
> false))
> ! return;
> ! break;
> Instead of just doing thi
On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I haven't had a chance to do this yet, so I'm going to do it tomorrow
>> instead.
>
> I dug into this a bit and found more problems. I wondered why Tom's
> patch did this:
>
> !
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I haven't had a chance to do this yet, so I'm going to do it tomorrow instead.
I dug into this a bit and found more problems. I wondered why Tom's
patch did this:
! if (has_parallel_hazard((Node *) rte->subquery, false)
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Tom, do you want to commit this, or do you want me to handle it, or
>>> something else?
>>
>> I was not sure if you'd agreed that the patch was correct, and in any
>> case I thought you wanted to fold it into the upperrel consider_parallel
>>
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> 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 hav
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila 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.
Amit Kapila 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.
In the subquery case, my view of how it ought to work is t
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:42 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 04:46:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
The above-described topic is currently a Post
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 04:46:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item ("fix
>>> possible confusion between s
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 04:46:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item ("fix
>> possible confusion between subqueries and subplans").
> This open item comes with a
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 04:46:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>> > In practice, we don't yet have the ability for
>> > parallel-safe paths from subqueries to affect planning at higher query
>> > levels, but that's because th
15 matches
Mail list logo
