| From: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |
| Date: | 2016-06-02 15:33:03 |
| Message-ID: | 575051AF.2090101@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/02/2016 04:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, I think we could drop node, if you like. I think parallel
> wouldn't be good to drop, though, because it sounds like we want a
> global limit on parallel workers also, and that can't be just
> max_workers. So I think we should keep parallel in there for all of
> them, and have max_parallel_workers and
> max_parallel_workers_per_gather(_node). The reloption and the Path
> struct field can be parallel_workers rather than parallel_degree.
So does that mean we'll rename it if you manage to implement a parameter
which controls the number of workers for the whole statement?
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-02 15:53:31 | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-02 15:29:22 | Re: epoll_wait returning EFAULT on Linux 3.2.78 |