On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I can get on board with that statement. Can you draft a better wording? > >> Here is an attempt. Feel free to edit. > > I think s/plan/query/ in the last bit would be better. Perhaps > > + * However, if force_parallel_mode = on or force_parallel_mode = > regress, > + * then we impose parallel mode whenever it's safe to do so, even if > the > + * final plan doesn't use parallelism. It's not safe to do so if the > query > + * contains anything parallel-unsafe; parallelModeOK will be false in > that > + * case. Otherwise, everything in the query is either parallel-safe > or > + * parallel-restricted, and in either case it should be OK to impose > + * parallel-mode restrictions. If that ends up breaking something, > then > + * either some function the user included in the query is incorrectly > + * labelled as parallel-safe or parallel-restricted when in reality > it's > + * parallel-unsafe, or else the query planner itself has a bug. > */
Works for me. I'm happy to phrase this in any way that makes it clear to you, 'cuz it's already clear to me. :-) You want to push something, or should I do it? -- 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
