Re: fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Don't have time to re-read this right now, but maybe tomorrow or
>> Saturday.

> OK, thanks.

There's still the extra-word problem here:

+     * If the input rel is marked consider_parallel and there's nothing
+     * that's not parallel-safe in the LIMIT clause, then the final_rel is
+     * can be marked consider_parallel as well.

Other than that, and the quibble over initialization of
parallelModeNeeded, I'm good with this.
        regards, tom lane