@@ -134,12 +134,12 @@ EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM pgbench_accounts WHERE filler LIKE '%x%';
134134
135135 <itemizedlist>
136136 <listitem>
137- <para>
137+ <para>
138138 The query writes any data or locks any database rows. If a query
139139 contains a data-modifying operation either at the top level or within
140140 a CTE, no parallel plans for that query will be generated. This is a
141141 limitation of the current implementation which could be lifted in a
142- future release.
142+ future release.
143143 </para>
144144 </listitem>
145145
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM pgbench_accounts WHERE filler LIKE '%x%';
153153 <literal>FOR x IN query LOOP .. END LOOP</literal> will never use a
154154 parallel plan, because the parallel query system is unable to verify
155155 that the code in the loop is safe to execute while parallel query is
156- active.
156+ active.
157157 </para>
158158 </listitem>
159159
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM pgbench_accounts WHERE filler LIKE '%x%';
174174 query itself, that query will never use a parallel plan. This is a
175175 limitation of the current implementation, but it may not be desirable
176176 to remove this limitation, since it could result in a single query
177- using a very large number of processes.
177+ using a very large number of processes.
178178 </para>
179179 </listitem>
180180
@@ -197,23 +197,23 @@ EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM pgbench_accounts WHERE filler LIKE '%x%';
197197
198198 <itemizedlist>
199199 <listitem>
200- <para>
200+ <para>
201201 No background workers can be obtained because of the limitation that
202202 the total number of background workers cannot exceed
203203 <xref linkend="guc-max-worker-processes">.
204204 </para>
205205 </listitem>
206206
207207 <listitem>
208- <para>
208+ <para>
209209 No background workers can be obtained because of the limitation that
210210 the total number of background workers launched for purposes of
211211 parallel query cannot exceed <xref linkend="guc-max-parallel-workers">.
212212 </para>
213213 </listitem>
214214
215215 <listitem>
216- <para>
216+ <para>
217217 The client sends an Execute message with a non-zero fetch count.
218218 See the discussion of the
219219 <link linkend="protocol-flow-ext-query">extended query protocol</link>.
@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM pgbench_accounts WHERE filler LIKE '%x%';
228228 </listitem>
229229
230230 <listitem>
231- <para>
231+ <para>
232232 A prepared statement is executed using a <literal>CREATE TABLE .. AS
233233 EXECUTE ..</literal> statement. This construct converts what otherwise
234234 would have been a read-only operation into a read-write operation,
@@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM pgbench_accounts WHERE filler LIKE '%x%';
237237 </listitem>
238238
239239 <listitem>
240- <para>
240+ <para>
241241 The transaction isolation level is serializable. This situation
242242 does not normally arise, because parallel query plans are not
243243 generated when the transaction isolation level is serializable.
@@ -467,15 +467,15 @@ EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM pgbench_accounts WHERE filler LIKE '%x%';
467467 transaction. If you write a function which does this, and this behavior
468468 difference is important to you, mark such functions as
469469 <literal>PARALLEL RESTRICTED</literal>
470- to ensure that they execute only in the leader.
470+ to ensure that they execute only in the leader.
471471 </para>
472472
473473 <para>
474474 Note that the query planner does not consider deferring the evaluation of
475475 parallel-restricted functions or aggregates involved in the query in
476476 order to obtain a superior plan. So, for example, if a <literal>WHERE</>
477477 clause applied to a particular table is parallel restricted, the query
478- planner will not consider placing the scan of that table below a
478+ planner will not consider placing the scan of that table below a
479479 <literal>Gather</> node. In some cases, it would be
480480 possible (and perhaps even efficient) to include the scan of that table in
481481 the parallel portion of the query and defer the evaluation of the
0 commit comments