On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The other alternative is to remember this information in SubPlan.  We
>> can retrieve parallel_safe information from best_path and can use it
>> while generating SubPlan.  The main reason for storing it in the plan
>> was to avoid explicitly passing parallel_safe information while
>> generating SubPlan as plan was already available at that time.
>> However, it seems there are only two places in code (refer
>> build_subplan) where this information needs to be propagated.  Let me
>> know if you prefer to remember the parallel_safe information in
>> SubPlan instead of in Plan or if you have something else in mind?
> I think we should try doing it in the SubPlan, at least, and see if
> that comes out more elegant than what you have at the moment.

Okay, done that way.  I have fixed the review comments raised by Dilip
as well and added the test case in attached patch.

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

Attachment: pq_pushdown_subplan_v2.patch
Description: Binary data

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

Reply via email to