Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>> Is there a reason not to make a rule that opclass members must be >>> parallel-safe? I ask because I think it's important that the process >>> of planning a query be categorically parallel-safe.
>> I'm not seeing the connection between those two statements. The planner >> doesn't usually execute opclass members, at least not as such. > Hmm, I guess I'm spouting nonsense there. The way the operator gets > invoked during planning is that eqsel() calls it. But that doesn't > require it to be part of an opclass; it just has to be an operator > that's chosen that eqsel as its selectivity estimator. Yeah. So what we'd want here is a rule that selectivity estimator functions must be parallel-safe. For operators using estimators similar to eqsel() that would imply a requirement on the operator's function as well, but it's the estimator not any opclass connection that creates that requirement. 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