On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 05:18:17PM -0400, Asim Praveen wrote: > Hi Amit > > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > This is one way, but I think there are other choices as well. We can > > identify and flush all the dirty (local) buffers for the relation > > being accessed parallelly. Now, once the parallel operation is > > started, we won't allow performing any write operation on them. It > > We talked about this in person in Ottawa and it was great meeting you! > To summarize, the above proposal to continue using local buffers for > temp tables is a step forward, however, it enables only certain kinds > of queries to be parallelized for temp tables. E.g. queries changing > a temp table in any way cannot be parallelized due to the restriction > of no writes during parallel operation.
Should this be a TODO item? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +