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
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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
