On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
OK, no problem. I was arguing from the beginning that we couldn't make that work, so it sounds like we are now in agreement. -- 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
