Re: Parallel execution and prepared statements

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

To: Tobias Bussmann <t.bussmann@gmx.net>

Cc: "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>

Date: 2016-12-03T03:29:43Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Enable parallelism for prepared statements and extended query protocol.
- 57a6a72b6bc9 9.6.0 cited

Attachments

prepared_stmt_parallel_query_v4.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v4

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Tobias Bussmann <t.bussmann@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, then my vote is to do it that way for now.
>
> Thanks for your opinion. That's fine with me.
>
>> Am 02.12.2016 um 07:22 schrieb Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>:
>> Done that way in attached patch.
>
> Did a quick review:
>

Thanks for the review.

> You should however include a sentence in the documentation on that parallel plan w/o workers corner-case behaviour. Feel free to take that from my patch or phase a better wording.
>

I have taken it from your patch.

> And again my question regarding back patching to 9.6:
> - 9.6 is currently broken as Laurenz showed in [1]
> - 9.6 does not have documented that SQL PREPARE prepared statements cannot not use parallel query
>
> The former could be fixed by back patching the full patch which would void the latter.
>

I think if we don't see any impact then we should backpatch this
patch. However, if we decide to go some other way, then I can provide
a separate patch for back branches.  BTW, what is your opinion?


-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com