On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:23 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: > I've marked this as rejected in the commitfest, because others are > working on a more general solution with parallel workers. That's still > work-in-progress, and it's not certain if it's going to make it into > 9.6, but if it does it will largely render this obsolete. We can revisit > this patch later in the release cycle, if the parallel scan patch hasn't > solved the same use case by then.
I think the really important issue for this patch is the one discussed here: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmoaijk1svzw_gkfu+zssxcijkfelqu2aomvuphpsfw4...@mail.gmail.com You raised an important issue there but never really expressed an opinion on the points I raised, here or on the other thread. And neither did anyone else except the patch author who, perhaps unsurprisingly, thinks it's OK. I wish we could get more discussion about that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
