Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> On 2018/10/04 5:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think that we ought to adjust parallel query to insist that children
>> do take locks, and then revert the IsParallelWorker() exceptions I made
>> here.
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't the necessary adjustment just
> that the relations are opened with locks if inside a parallel worker?
Yeah, that's one plausible way to fix it. I hadn't wanted to prejudge
the best way before we finish the other changes, though.
> I've rebased the remaining patches. I broke down one of the patches into
> 2 and re-ordered the patches as follows:
Thanks, will start looking at these today.
regards, tom lane