| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Date: | 2015-04-08 07:38:32 |
| Message-ID: | 5524DAF8.3020603@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08-04-2015 PM 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Going forward, I think we can improve the same if we decide not to shutdown
> parallel workers till postmaster shutdown once they are started and
> then just allocate them during executor-start phase.
>
I wonder if it makes sense to invent the notion of a global pool of workers
with configurable number of workers that are created at postmaster start and
destroyed at shutdown and requested for use when a query uses parallelizable
nodes. That way, parallel costing model might be better able to factor in the
available-resources-for-parallelization aspect, too. Though, I'm not quite
sure how that helps solve (if at all) the problem of occasional unjustifiable
resource consumption due to parallelization.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-04-08 07:53:29 | Re: ConfigData in postgresql.conf |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2015-04-08 07:34:29 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |