On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 7:27 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 7:12 PM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 2:28 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I have worked to provide a patch for the parallel safety checks. It > > checks if parallely copy can be performed, Parallel copy cannot be > > performed for the following a) If relation is temporary table b) If > > relation is foreign table c) If relation has non parallel safe index > > expressions d) If relation has triggers present whose type is of non > > before statement trigger type e) If relation has check constraint > > which are not parallel safe f) If relation has partition and any > > partition has the above type. This patch has the checks for it. This > > patch will be used by parallel copy implementation. > > > > How did you ensure that this is sufficient? For parallel-insert's > patch we have enabled parallel-mode for Inserts and ran the tests with > force_parallel_mode to see if we are not missing anything. Also, it > seems there are many common things here w.r.t parallel-insert patch, > is it possible to prepare this atop that patch or do you have any > reason to keep this separate? >
I have done similar testing for copy too, I had set force_parallel mode to regress, hardcoded in the code to pick parallel workers for copy operation and ran make installcheck-world to verify. Many checks in this patch are common between both patches, but I was not sure how to handle it as both the projects are in-progress and are being updated based on the reviewer's opinion. How to handle this? Thoughts? Regards, Vignesh EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com