Re: [HACKERS] oversight in parallel aggregate

2016-04-05 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:09 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 5 April 2016 at 11:59, Robert Haas wrote: >> One of my EDB colleagues, while in the process of refactoring some >> unrelated Advanced Server code, discovered that (1) there's no way to

Re: [HACKERS] oversight in parallel aggregate

2016-04-05 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:26 PM, David Rowley wrote: > Does this need to check the parallel flags on the transfn or serialfn? > these'll be executed on the worker process. Possibly we also need the > combinefn/deserialfn/finalfn to be checked too as I see that we do

Re: [HACKERS] oversight in parallel aggregate

2016-04-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> One of my EDB colleagues, while in the process of refactoring some >> unrelated Advanced Server code, discovered that (1) there's no way to >> mark an aggregate as anything other

Re: [HACKERS] oversight in parallel aggregate

2016-04-04 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > One of my EDB colleagues, while in the process of refactoring some > unrelated Advanced Server code, discovered that (1) there's no way to > mark an aggregate as anything other than parallel-unsafe but (2) it > doesn't matter because

Re: [HACKERS] oversight in parallel aggregate

2016-04-04 Thread David Rowley
On 5 April 2016 at 13:09, David Rowley wrote: > On 5 April 2016 at 11:59, Robert Haas wrote: >> One of my EDB colleagues, while in the process of refactoring some >> unrelated Advanced Server code, discovered that (1) there's no way to >> mark

Re: [HACKERS] oversight in parallel aggregate

2016-04-04 Thread David Rowley
On 5 April 2016 at 11:59, Robert Haas wrote: > One of my EDB colleagues, while in the process of refactoring some > unrelated Advanced Server code, discovered that (1) there's no way to > mark an aggregate as anything other than parallel-unsafe but (2) it > doesn't matter