Amit Kapila writes:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think leaving that sort of thing out is just creating a latent bug
>> that is certain to bite you later. It's true that as long as the args
>> list contains only Vars, it would never be parallel-unsafe --- but
>> primnod
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
>> I have ended up doing something along the lines suggested by you (or
>> at least what I have understood from your e-mail). Basically, pass
>> the safe-param-ids list to parallel safety function and decide based
>> on that
Amit Kapila writes:
> I have ended up doing something along the lines suggested by you (or
> at least what I have understood from your e-mail). Basically, pass
> the safe-param-ids list to parallel safety function and decide based
> on that if Param node reference in input expression is safe.
I
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> FYI, I have this on my to-look-at list, and expect to fix it before Robert
>>> returns from vacation.
>
>> Let me know if an initial patch by someone else can be helpfu
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 1:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> FYI, I have this on my to-look-at list, and expect to fix it before Robert
>>> returns from vacation.
>
>> Let me know if an initial patch by someone else can be helpful
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> FYI, I have this on my to-look-at list, and expect to fix it before Robert
>> returns from vacation.
> Let me know if an initial patch by someone else can be helpful?
Sure, have a go at it. I won't get to this for a day
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:41:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> This is 100% wrong. It's failing to recurse into the subexpressions of
>>> the SubPlan, which could very easily include parallel-unsafe function
>>> calls. Exam
Noah Misch writes:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:41:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is 100% wrong. It's failing to recurse into the subexpressions of
>> the SubPlan, which could very easily include parallel-unsafe function
>> calls. Example:
> The above-described topic is currently a Postgre
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:41:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> While poking at the question of parallel_safe marking for Plans,
> I noticed that max_parallel_hazard_walker() does this:
>
> /* We can push the subplans only if they are parallel-safe. */
> else if (IsA(node, SubPlan))
>
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> This is 100% wrong. It's failing to recurse into the subexpressions of
>>> the SubPlan, which could very easily include parallel-unsafe function
>>> calls.
>
>> My unde
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is 100% wrong. It's failing to recurse into the subexpressions of
>> the SubPlan, which could very easily include parallel-unsafe function
>> calls.
> My understanding (apparently flawed?) is that the parallel_safe f
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> While poking at the question of parallel_safe marking for Plans,
> I noticed that max_parallel_hazard_walker() does this:
>
> /* We can push the subplans only if they are parallel-safe. */
> else if (IsA(node, SubPlan))
> return !(
12 matches
Mail list logo