On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 6:53 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > On Friday, July 30, 2021 2:52 PM Greg Nancarrow <gregn4...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 4:02 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Besides, I think we need a new default value about parallel dml > > > > safety. Maybe 'auto' or 'null'(different from > > > > safe/restricted/unsafe). Because, user is likely to alter the safety > > > > to the default value to get the automatic safety check, a independent > > > > default > > > > value can make it more clear. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, but auto won't work for partitioned tables, right? If so, that > > > might appear like an inconsistency to the user and we need to document > > > the same. Let me summarize the discussion so far in this thread so > > > that it is helpful to others. > > > > > > > To avoid that inconsistency, UNSAFE could be the default for partitioned > > tables > > (and we would disallow setting AUTO for these). > > So then AUTO is the default for non-partitioned tables only. > > I think this approach is reasonable, +1. >
I see the need to change to default via Alter Table but I am not sure if Auto is the most appropriate way to handle that. How about using DEFAULT itself as we do in the case of REPLICA IDENTITY? So, if users have to alter parallel safety value to default, they need to just say Parallel DML DEFAULT. The default would mean automatic behavior for non-partitioned relations and ignore parallelism for partitioned tables. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
