Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dhggC-0002yV-43 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:35:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dhggB-00031W-Jo for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:35:03 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dhggA-0002y5-Iq for pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:35:02 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dhgg7-0000Qa-TL for pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:35:01 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v7FIYwCN023426 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:34:58 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Simplify plpgsql's check for simple expressions. In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane message dated "Tue, 15 Aug 2017 16:28:46 -0000" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <23424.1502822098.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:34:58 -0400 Message-ID: <23425.1502822098@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Tom Lane writes: > Simplify plpgsql's check for simple expressions. > ... > https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/00418c61244138bd8ac2de58076a1d0d= d4f539f3 The buildfarm members that are running force_parallel_mode =3D regress are not happy with this. Apparently, even a trivial SELECT can be turned into a Gather plan if force_parallel_mode says so. I assume (haven't looked) that I could hack the plpgsql code to prevent generating a parallel plan when it's decided the command is a simple SELECT. But I wonder whether that's the right place to fix it. Does it ever make sense to parallelize a plan that can't possibly benefit? IOW I am not sure that we should carry force_parallel_mode this far. regards, tom lane --=20 Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers