On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> During debugging I found that subplan created for below part of the >> query is parallel_unsafe, Is it a problem or there is some explanation >> of why it's not parallel_safe, > > Okay, so basically we don't have any mechanism to perform parallel > scan on CTE. And, IMHO subplan built for CTE (using SS_process_ctes) > must come along with CTE scan. So I think we can avoid setting below > code because we will never be able to test its side effect, another > argument can be that if we don't consider the final effect, and just > see this subplan then by logic it should be marked parallel-safe or > unsafe as per it's path and it will not have any side effect, as it > will finally become parallel-unsafe. So it's your call to keep it > either way. Oops, you're right. We don't consider parallelism for RTE_CTE type.
-- Thanks & Regards, Kuntal Ghosh EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
