Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Don't have time to re-read this right now, but maybe tomorrow or
>> Saturday.
> OK, thanks.
There's still the extra-word problem here:
+ * If the input rel is marked consider_parallel and there's nothing
+ * that's not parallel-safe in the LIMIT clause, then the final_rel is
+ * can be marked consider_parallel as well.
Other than that, and the quibble over initialization of
parallelModeNeeded, I'm good with this.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
