Re: parallel explain analyze support not exercised

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: parallel explain analyze support not exercised
Date: 2017-04-03 19:31:59
Message-ID: 20170403193159.t2owklnxcurzvl2u@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-04-03 15:13:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >> Please find the attached for the same.
> >
> >> +-- to increase the parallel query test coverage
> >> +EXPLAIN (analyze, timing off, summary off, costs off) SELECT * FROM tenk1;
> >> + QUERY PLAN
> >> +-------------------------------------------------------------
> >> + Gather (actual rows=10000 loops=1)
> >> + Workers Planned: 4
> >> + Workers Launched: 4
> >> + -> Parallel Seq Scan on tenk1 (actual rows=2000 loops=5)
> >> +(4 rows)
> >
> > Is there an issue that we might not actually be able to start all four
> > workers? Serious question, not rhetorical.
>
> If this is 'make check', then we should have 8 parallel workers
> allowed, so if we only do one of these at a time, then I think we're
> OK. But if somebody changes that configuration setting or if it's
> 'make installcheck', then the configuration could be anything.

Hm - we already rely on max_parallel_workers_per_gather being set with
some of the explains in the test. So I guess we're ok also relying on
actual workers being present?

- Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Verite 2017-04-03 19:32:17 Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless)
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2017-04-03 19:30:09 Re: Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion