Re: assessing parallel-safety

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: assessing parallel-safety
Date: 2015-03-16 18:55:27
Message-ID: 5115.1426532127@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Is there a reason not to make a rule that opclass members must be
> parallel-safe? I ask because I think it's important that the process
> of planning a query be categorically parallel-safe.

I'm not seeing the connection between those two statements. The planner
doesn't usually execute opclass members, at least not as such.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-03-16 19:02:19 Re: assessing parallel-safety
Previous Message Dmitry Igrishin 2015-03-16 18:46:39 Re: How to create shared_ptr for PGconn?