Re: Improving planner's checks for parallel-unsafety

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I have reviewed this and it looks good to me.  My only comment is that
> this comment is slightly confusing:

> !  * Returns the first of PROPARALLEL_UNSAFE, PROPARALLEL_RESTRICTED, or
> !  * PROPARALLEL_SAFE that can be found in the given parsetree.  We use this

> "First" might be read to mean "the first one we happen to run across"
> rather than "the earliest in list ordering".

Thanks for the review.  I'll reconsider how to phrase that --- have you
any suggestions?
        regards, tom lane