Thom Brown wrote: > 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.
You should be able to drop the pg_proc.h changes and run the supplied perl program. (I'm not sure that sending the patched pg_proc.h together with this patch is all that useful, really.) -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers