To my knowledge it does not allow that level of parallelism. If that's what you are trying to do the best approach is to go with Postgres-XC or GridSQL, but Postgres-XC while more complex is also more flexible.
http://postgres-xc.sourceforge.net/ is the project page.
From the SQL Server query optimizer's point of view, there is not much to choose between the parallel and serial execution plans in this case.
In general, the optimizer's cost model reduces the CPU cost (not the I/O cost) of operators in a parallel plan in proportion to the estimated degree of parallelism available. This CPU adjustment explains why the optimizer ever chooses a parallel plan (which will generally consume more resources) over a serial plan.
Unfortunately, the cost model does not apply this CPU reduction to the inner side of a nested loops join. It makes no sense to me (because the inner side still uses parallelism efficiently), but I didn't design the cost model.
Anyway, because the majority of the CPU cost in this execution plan is associated with the Clustered Index Scan (for which CPU reduction does not apply), the choice between serial and parallel is a close one. In broad terms, to be selected, a parallel plan must save enough using the local/global Stream Aggregate to compensate for the extra exchanges (Distribute and Gather Streams). The costs involved in that decision depend sensitively on the distribution of row values, as well as the number of rows. With relatively few rows and low-CPU operators, the trade-off can easily go either way.
In short, this query suffers from a debatable design choice applied to the costing of parallel nested loops joins. You can force the selection of a parallel plan using a plan guide, or by using the undocumented trace flag 8649. In SQL Server 2016 SP1 CU2 onward, you can also use the undocumented ENABLE_PARALLEL_PLAN_PREFERENCE
hint.
Best Answer
From the documentation:
As to your second question,
Any deadlock is predicated on the query / queries being run and how they are structured and executed, SQL Server does not inherently guarantee any deadlocks on its own.