Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Huh? The final tlist would go with the final_rel, ISTM, not the scan >> relation. Maybe we have some rejiggering to do to make that true, though.
> Mumble. You're right that there are two rels involved, but I think > I'm still right about the substance of the problem. I can't tell > whether the remainder of your email concedes that point or whether > we're still in disagreement. Well, I was trying to find a way that we could rely on the rel's consider_parallel marking rather than having to test the pathtarget as such, but I concluded that we couldn't do that. Sorry if thinking out loud confused you. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers