On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Tobias Bussmann <t.bussm...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> OK, then my vote is to do it that way for now.
> Thanks for your opinion. That's fine with me.
>> Am 02.12.2016 um 07:22 schrieb Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com>:
>> Done that way in attached patch.
> Did a quick review:

Thanks for the review.

> You should however include a sentence in the documentation on that parallel 
> plan w/o workers corner-case behaviour. Feel free to take that from my patch 
> or phase a better wording.

I have taken it from your patch.

> And again my question regarding back patching to 9.6:
> - 9.6 is currently broken as Laurenz showed in [1]
> - 9.6 does not have documented that SQL PREPARE prepared statements cannot 
> not use parallel query
> The former could be fixed by back patching the full patch which would void 
> the latter.

I think if we don't see any impact then we should backpatch this
patch. However, if we decide to go some other way, then I can provide
a separate patch for back branches.  BTW, what is your opinion?

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment: prepared_stmt_parallel_query_v4.patch
Description: Binary data

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to