On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
OK, committed. I think we can argue about parallelModeNeeded as a separate matter. That's merely a sideshow as far as this patch is concerned. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
