Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> ... However, this is one of the big problems that
>> we'd have to have a solution for before we ever consider allowing
>> read-write parallelism.
> Having such a blocker for read-write parallelism would be unfortunate,
> though perhaps there isn't much help for it, and having read-only query
> parallelism is certainly far better than nothing.
IIUC, this is not the only large problem standing between us and
read-write parallelism, and probably not even the biggest one.
So I'm basically just asking that it gets documented while it's
fresh in mind, rather than leaving it for some future hackers to
rediscover the hard way. (Wouldn't be bad to doc the other known
stumbling blocks, too.)
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
