"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 (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers