On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The other alternative is to remember this information in SubPlan. We
>>> can retrieve parallel_safe information from best_path and can use it
>>> while generating SubPlan. The main reason for storing it in the plan
>>> was to avoid explicitly passing parallel_safe information while
>>> generating SubPlan as plan was already available at that time.
>>> However, it seems there are only two places in code (refer
>>> build_subplan) where this information needs to be propagated. Let me
>>> know if you prefer to remember the parallel_safe information in
>>> SubPlan instead of in Plan or if you have something else in mind?
>>
>> I think we should try doing it in the SubPlan, at least, and see if
>> that comes out more elegant than what you have at the moment.
>>
>
> Okay, done that way. I have fixed the review comments raised by Dilip
> as well and added the test case in attached patch.
>
After commit-ab1f0c8, this patch needs a rebase. Attached find
rebased version of the patch.
Thanks to Kuntal for informing me offlist that this patch needs rebase.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers