On 18 March 2015 at 16:01, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:26 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: >>> Neither that rule, nor its variant downthread, would hurt operator authors >>> too >>> much. To make the planner categorically parallel-safe, though, means >>> limiting >>> evaluate_function() to parallel-safe functions. That would dramatically >>> slow >>> selected queries. It's enough for the PL scenario if planning a >>> parallel-safe >>> query is itself parallel-safe. If the planner is parallel-unsafe when >>> planning a parallel-unsafe query, what would suffer? >> >> Good point. So I guess the rule can be that planning a parallel-safe >> query should be parallel-safe. From there, it follows that estimators >> for a parallel-safe operator must also be parallel-safe. Which seems >> fine. > > More work is needed here, but for now, here is a rebased patch, per > Amit's request.
This no longer applies due to changes in commit 13dbc7a824b3f905904cab51840d37f31a07a9ef. -- Thom -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
