On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 7:51 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Among the above options, I would personally prefer (b) mainly because > of the consistent handling for partition and non-partition table cases > but I am fine with approach (a) as well if that is what other people > feel is better. > > Thoughts? >
I personally think "(b) provide an option to the user to specify whether inserts can be parallelized on a relation" is the preferable option. There seems to be too many issues with the alternative of trying to determine the parallel-safety of a partitioned table automatically. I think (b) is the simplest and most consistent approach, working the same way for all table types, and without the overhead of (a). Also, I don't think (b) is difficult for the user. At worst, the user can use the provided utility-functions at development-time to verify the intended declared table parallel-safety. I can't really see some mixture of (a) and (b) being acceptable. Regards, Greg Nancarrow Fujitsu Australia
