| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 19:02:19 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoatcWAOr9Eto9ReDvHTe2_PhEYkxZDvs1=duof9BAJ-+Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.
Hmm, I guess I'm spouting nonsense there. The way the operator gets
invoked during planning is that eqsel() calls it. But that doesn't
require it to be part of an opclass; it just has to be an operator
that's chosen that eqsel as its selectivity estimator.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-03-16 19:06:32 | Re: assessing parallel-safety |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-03-16 18:55:27 | Re: assessing parallel-safety |