Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification
Date
Msg-id 5938.1457322227@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification
List pgsql-hackers
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Is there some reason why hash and nestloop are safe but merge isn't?

> To make hash and nestloop work in parallel queries, we just push those
> nodes below gather node.  Refer code
> paths match_unsorted_outer()->consider_parallel_nestloop()
> and hash_inner_and_outer()->try_partial_hashjoin_path().

AFAICS, those are about generating partial paths, which is a completely
different thing from whether a regular path is parallel-safe or not.
(I think, anyway.  It would be nice if this stuff were documented better.
It would also likely be a good thing if partial-ness of a path were marked
in the path itself, which does not seem to be the case now.  Or at the
very least, it'd be a good thing if create_foo_path and the underlying
costing functions were told it was a partial path, because how the heck
can they generate sane cost numbers without that knowledge?)
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Badly designed error reporting code in controldata_utils.c
Next
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.