From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel Sort |
Date: | 2013-05-14 12:48:09 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobustvJgxyKNityCqOZQrThTQvDMs76FXvxoyquPtQ6Ww@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | 503 토토 사이트 추천 |
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure what the specific answer here should look like. Simply
>> having a
>> CREATE FUNCTION ... PARALLEL_IS_FINE flag is not entirely satisfying,
>> because
>> the rules are liable to loosen over time.
>
> Having a flag would be enough to control parallelism, but cannot we also
> determine if
> the execution of a function can be shipped safely to a worker based on its
> volatility
> only? Immutable functions are presumably safe as they do not modify the
> database state
> and give always the same result, volatile and stable functions are
> definitely not safe.
> For such reasons, it would be better to keep things simple and rely on
> simple rules to
> determine if a given expression can be executed safely on a backend worker.
In the part of the text you didn't quote, Noah explained why not all
immutable functions are parallel-safe.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2013-05-14 12:53:16 | Re: Cube extension improvement, GSoC |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-05-14 12:35:03 | Re: erroneous restore into pg_catalog schema |