On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 4:02 PM Hou, Zhijie <houzj.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > Attatching v2 patch which addressed the comments above. > > Some further refactor: > > Introducing a new function is_parallel_possible_for_modify() which decide > whether to do safety check. > > IMO, It seems more readable to extract all the check that we can do before > the safety-check and put them > in the new function. > > Please consider it for further review. >
I've updated your v2 patches and altered some comments and documentation changes (but made no code changes) - please compare against your v2 patches, and see whether you agree with the changes to the wording. In the documentation, you will also notice that in your V2 patch, it says that the "parallel_dml_enabled" table option defaults to false. As it actually defaults to true, I changed that in the documentation too. Regards, Greg Nancarrow Fujitsu Australia
v3_0004-reloption-parallel_dml-test-and-doc.patch
Description: Binary data
v3_0001-guc-option-enable_parallel_dml-src.patch
Description: Binary data
v3_0002-guc-option-enable_parallel_dml-doc-and-test.patch
Description: Binary data
v3_0003-reloption-parallel_dml-src.patch
Description: Binary data
