On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Huh? The final tlist would go with the final_rel, ISTM, not the scan
>>> relation. Maybe we have some rejiggering to do to make that true, though.
>
>> Mumble. You're right that there are two rels involved, but I think
>> I'm still right about the substance of the problem. I can't tell
>> whether the remainder of your email concedes that point or whether
>> we're still in disagreement.
>
> Well, I was trying to find a way that we could rely on the rel's
> consider_parallel marking rather than having to test the pathtarget as
> such, but I concluded that we couldn't do that. Sorry if thinking
> out loud confused you.
OK, no problem. I was arguing from the beginning that we couldn't
make that work, so it sounds like we are now in agreement.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company