On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> And the point of that is what, exactly? If the only change is that >>> "some restrictions get enforced", I am not clear on why we need such >>> a test mode in cases where the planner is afraid to put a top Gather on >>> the plan. In particular, given the coding as you now have it, it seems >>> like the only case where there's any difference is where we set >>> glob->parallelModeOK but nonetheless end up with a not-parallel-safe >>> topmost path (that doesn't have a Gather within it). It's not clear >>> to me why having the executor switch into parallel mode makes sense at >>> all with such a plan. > >> Suppose you create a PL/pgsql function that does an UPDATE and mark it >> PARALLEL RESTRICTED. You wonder whether you've marked it correctly. >> You can set force_parallel_mode=on and SELECT myfunc(). The >> subsequent ERROR tells you that you've mismarked it. > > Right, but that statement is still true with the logic I'm imagining. > I would also argue that the existing text in config.sgml explaining > what this parameter does corresponds much more nearly to what I'm > suggesting than to what you say the semantics are.
I just went and reread that description and it looks to me like it matches what I said. I guess I don't really understand what exactly you want to change. -- 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
