On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Tobias Bussmann <t.bussmann@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, then my vote is to do it that way for now.
>
> Thanks for your opinion. That's fine with me.
>
>> Am 02.12.2016 um 07:22 schrieb Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>:
>> Done that way in attached patch.
>
> Did a quick review:
>
Thanks for the review.
> You should however include a sentence in the documentation on that parallel plan w/o workers corner-case behaviour.
Feelfree to take that from my patch or phase a better wording.
>
I have taken it from your patch.
> And again my question regarding back patching to 9.6:
> - 9.6 is currently broken as Laurenz showed in [1]
> - 9.6 does not have documented that SQL PREPARE prepared statements cannot not use parallel query
>
> The former could be fixed by back patching the full patch which would void the latter.
>
I think if we don't see any impact then we should backpatch this
patch. However, if we decide to go some other way, then I can provide
a separate patch for back branches. BTW, what is your opinion?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com