| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: COPY (query) TO ... doesn't allow parallelism |
| Date: | 2017-06-01 16:04:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20170601160428.ipmzwvowgi3fexpo@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-06-01 21:23:04 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On a related note, I think it might be better to have an
> IsInParallelMode() check in this case as we have at other places.
> This is to ensure that if this command is invoked via plpgsql function
> and that function runs is the parallel mode, it will act as a
> safeguard.
Hm? Which other places do it that way? Isn't standard_planner()
centralizing such a check?
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-06-01 16:07:56 | Re: COPY (query) TO ... doesn't allow parallelism |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-06-01 15:53:04 | Re: COPY (query) TO ... doesn't allow parallelism |