On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:14 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> afaict for deferrable READ ONLY DEFERRABLE transactions we could
> trivially allow parallelism? Am I missing something?
I think you are right. What's more, DEFERRABLE transactions seem very
likely to be cases where parallelism would be
Hi,
The code currently says:
* We can't use parallelism in serializable mode because the predicate
* locking code is not parallel-aware. It's not catastrophic if someone
* tries to run a parallel plan in serializable mode; it just won't get
* any workers and
