On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 05:18:17PM -0400, Asim Praveen wrote:
> Hi Amit
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is one way, but I think there are other choices as well. We can
> > identify and flush all the dirty (local) buffers for the relation
> > being accessed parallelly. Now, once the parallel operation is
> > started, we won't allow performing any write operation on them. It
>
> We talked about this in person in Ottawa and it was great meeting you!
> To summarize, the above proposal to continue using local buffers for
> temp tables is a step forward, however, it enables only certain kinds
> of queries to be parallelized for temp tables. E.g. queries changing
> a temp table in any way cannot be parallelized due to the restriction
> of no writes during parallel operation.
Should this be a TODO item?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +