"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Given that we've decided to run the modifying sub-queries all with
>> the same command counter ID, they are logically executing "in
>> parallel".
>> Just run the main plan and let it pull tuples from the CTEs as
>> needed.
> On the face of it, that sounds like it has another benefit you
> didn't mention -- it sounds like it's much more conducive to
> allowing parallel processing, if (when?) we eventually move in that
> direction. It might even be a good case for an initial, limited
> implementation.
Yeah. Most of the executor is in principle parallelizable at the
plan-node level (ignoring the obvious and severe implementation
problems with parallelizing *anything* in the backend). It's not
good for wCTE to be creating a user-visible assumption that certain
things will happen in a predefined order.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
