| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Date: | 2015-01-05 15:21:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20150105152107.GQ3062@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> I think it's right to view this in the same way we view work_mem. We
> plan on the assumption that an amount of memory equal to work_mem will
> be available at execution time, without actually reserving it.
Agreed- this seems like a good approach for how to address this. We
should still be able to end up with plans which use less than the max
possible parallel workers though, as I pointed out somewhere up-thread.
This is also similar to work_mem- we certainly have plans which don't
expect to use all of work_mem and others that expect to use all of it
(per node, of course).
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-01-05 15:23:31 | Re: parallel mode and parallel contexts |
| Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2015-01-05 15:17:35 | Re: tracking commit timestamps |