| From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: asynchronous execution |
| Date: | 2017-03-16 21:16:32 |
| Message-ID: | CADkLM=cBZEX9L9HnhJYrtfiAN5Ebdu=xbvM_poWVGBR7yN3gVw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I reworked the test such that all of the foreign tables inherit from the
> > same parent table, and if you query that you do get async execution. But
> It
> > doesn't work when just stringing together those foreign tables with UNION
> > ALLs.
>
> > I don't know how to proceed with this review if that was a goal of the
> > patch.
>
> Whether it was a goal or not, I'd say there is something either broken
> or incorrectly implemented if you don't see that. The planner (and
> therefore also the executor) generally treats inheritance the same as
> simple UNION ALL. If that's not the case here, I'd want to know why.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Updated commitfest entry to "Returned With Feedback".
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-03-16 21:24:17 | Re: Size vs size_t |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-03-16 21:14:38 | Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless) |