On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 8:47 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > 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? >
+1. I think we have not hammered out the design completely, but if somebody is willing to put effort, it is not an unsolvable problem. AFAIU, this thread is about parallelizing queries that refer temp tables, however, it is not clear from the title of this thread. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
