On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 2:39 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The code check that you have identified above ensures that the INSERT
> > has an underlying SELECT, because the planner won't (and shouldn't
> > anyway) generate a parallel plan for INSERT...VALUES, so there is no
> > point doing any parallel-safety checks in this case.
> > It just so happens that the problem test case uses INSERT...VALUES -
> > and it shouldn't have triggered the parallel-safety checks for
> > parallel INSERT for this case anyway, because INSERT...VALUES can't
> > (and shouldn't) be parallelized.
>
> AFAICS, max_parallel_hazard() path never bails from doing further
> safety checks based on anything other than finding a query component
> whose hazard level crosses context->max_interesting.
It's parallel UNSAFE because it's not safe or even possible to have a
parallel plan for this.
(as UNSAFE is the max hazard level, no point in referencing
context->max_interesting).
And there are existing cases of bailing out and not doing further
safety checks (even your v15_delta.diff patch placed code - for
bailing out on "ON CONFLICT ... DO UPDATE" - underneath one such
existing case in max_parallel_hazard_walker()):
else if (IsA(node, Query))
{
Query *query = (Query *) node;
/* SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE must be treated as unsafe */
if (query->rowMarks != NULL)
{
context->max_hazard = PROPARALLEL_UNSAFE;
return true;
}
>You're trying to
> add something that bails based on second-guessing that a parallel path
> would not be chosen, which I find somewhat objectionable.
>
> If the main goal of bailing out is to avoid doing the potentially
> expensive modification safety check on the target relation, maybe we
> should try to somehow make the check less expensive. I remember
> reading somewhere in the thread about caching the result of this check
> in relcache, but haven't closely studied the feasibility of doing so.
>
There's no "second-guessing" involved here.
There is no underlying way of dividing up the VALUES data of
"INSERT...VALUES" amongst the parallel workers, even if the planner
was updated to produce a parallel-plan for the "INSERT...VALUES" case
(apart from the fact that spawning off parallel workers to insert that
data would almost always result in worse performance than a
non-parallel plan...)
The division of work for parallel workers is part of the table AM
(scan) implementation, which is not invoked for "INSERT...VALUES".
Regards,
Greg Nancarrow
Fujitsu Australia