From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>
cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
        Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
        robertmhaas@gmail.com, amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com,
        pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: asynchronous execution
In-reply-to: 
 <CADkLM=cqfQL5+CDa6eVqNvM2oNXCR8gcgTML2r7mpetGx_e6GA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9058d70b-a6b0-8b3c-091a-fe77ed0df580@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <20170216.210600.214980879.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <20170222.173945.262776579.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <20170223.205925.120810176.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CADkLM=eHssZhc2tC4t6C=8uGn2LV=NE6LuzavZc3+=mFW0AC0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <7847e2c8-2d8b-c692-4e0b-2544887ba606@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CADkLM=dCp=JRAjiC5bcH2c5Ug3EOMrdDs+CiyZjogOHkHCfH8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADkLM=ffokmXLdc3QRAs74zLC84AE1YWWnWGOt9PQ8osTzzs1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <dd705978-add0-7503-e78c-2ae78f6e869d@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CADkLM=fDOTnmJO4YQhvqMGoRGVzkCzZ0r0r4SUzM6aJn=d7x_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <e7dc8128-f32b-ff9a-870e-f1117b8e4fa6@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CADkLM=cqfQL5+CDa6eVqNvM2oNXCR8gcgTML2r7mpetGx_e6GA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>
	message dated "Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:03:21 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <22643.1489695423.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:17:03 -0400
Message-ID: <22644.1489695423@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.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


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers