Re: assessing parallel-safety

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:26 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>> Neither that rule, nor its variant downthread, would hurt operator authors too
>> much. To make the planner categorically parallel-safe, though, means limiting
>> evaluate_function() to parallel-safe functions. That would dramatically slow
>> selected queries. It's enough for the PL scenario if planning a parallel-safe
>> query is itself parallel-safe. If the planner is parallel-unsafe when
>> planning a parallel-unsafe query, what would suffer?
>
> Good point. So I guess the rule can be that planning a parallel-safe
> query should be parallel-safe. From there, it follows that estimators
> for a parallel-safe operator must also be parallel-safe. Which seems
> fine.

More work is needed here, but for now, here is a rebased patch, per
Amit's request.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company