On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 7:39 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > I'm thinking that when users say ALTER TABLE partioned_table SET PARALLEL > > TO 'safe';, we check all the partitions' and their associated objects' > > parallel > > safety? If all are parallel safe, then only we set partitioned_table as > > parallel safe. > > What should happen if the parallel safety of any of the associated > > objects/partitions changes after setting the partitioned_table safety? > > Currently, nothing happened if any of the associated objects/partitions > changes after setting the partitioned_table safety. > Because , we do not have a really cheap way to catch the change. The existing > relcache does not work because alter function > does not invalid the relcache which the function belongs to. And it will > bring some other overhead(locking, systable scan,...) > to find the table the objects belong to.
Makes sense. Anyways, the user is responsible for such changes and otherwise the executor can catch them at run time, if not, the users will see unintended consequences. > > My understanding was that: the command ALTER TABLE ... SET PARALLEL TO > > 'safe' work will check the parallel safety of all the objects associated > > with the > > table. If the objects are all parallel safe, then the table will be set to > > safe. If at > > least one object is parallel unsafe or restricted, then the command will > > fail. > > I think this idea makes sense. Some detail of the designed can be improved. > I agree with you that we can try to check check all the partitions' and their > associated objects' parallel safety when ALTER PARALLEL. > Because it's a separate new command, add some overhead to it seems not too > bad. > If there are no other objections, I plan to add safety check in the ALTER > PARALLEL command. Maybe we can make the parallel safety check of the associated objects/partitions optional for CREATE/ALTER DDLs, with the default being no checks performed. Both Greg and Amit agree that we don't have to perform any parallel safety checks during CREATE/ALTER DDLs. > > also thinking that how will the design cope with situations such as the > > parallel > > safety of any of the associated objects changing after setting the table to > > parallel safe. The planner would have relied on the outdated parallel > > safety of > > the table and chosen parallel inserts and the executor will catch such > > situations. > > Looks like my understanding was wrong. > > Currently, we assume user is responsible for its correctness. > Because, from our research, when the parallel safety of some of these objects > is changed, > it's costly to reflect it on the parallel safety of tables that depend on > them. > (we need to scan the pg_depend,pg_inherit,pg_index.... to find the target > table) Agree. With Regards, Bharath Rupireddy. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
