Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I can get on board with that statement. Can you draft a better wording?
> Here is an attempt. Feel free to edit. I think s/plan/query/ in the last bit would be better. Perhaps + * However, if force_parallel_mode = on or force_parallel_mode = regress, + * then we impose parallel mode whenever it's safe to do so, even if the + * final plan doesn't use parallelism. It's not safe to do so if the query + * contains anything parallel-unsafe; parallelModeOK will be false in that + * case. Otherwise, everything in the query is either parallel-safe or + * parallel-restricted, and in either case it should be OK to impose + * parallel-mode restrictions. If that ends up breaking something, then + * either some function the user included in the query is incorrectly + * labelled as parallel-safe or parallel-restricted when in reality it's + * parallel-unsafe, or else the query planner itself has a bug. */ regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers