Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions
Дата
Msg-id 364.1504725507@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> If somebody's applying apply_projection_to_path to a path that's already
>> been add_path'd, that's a violation of the documented restriction.

> /me is confused.  Isn't that exactly what grouping_planner() is doing,
> and has done ever since your original pathification commit
> (3fc6e2d7f5b652b417fa6937c34de2438d60fa9f)?  It's iterating over
> current_rel->pathlist, so surely everything in there has been
> add_path()'d.

I think the assumption there is that we no longer care about validity of
the input Relation, since we won't be looking at it any more (and
certainly not adding more paths to it).  If there's some reason why
that's not true, then maybe grouping_planner has a bug there.
        regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance of generic atomics
Следующее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance of generic atomics