| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CONNECTION LIMIT and Parallel Query don't play well together |
| Date: | 2017-08-23 23:15:05 |
| Message-ID: | 948099d2-fce9-1121-926b-d6778e6c5398@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/6/17 15:01, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2/15/17 11:19, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> So I would like to have a background worker limit per user, as you
>> allude to. Attached is a patch that implements a GUC setting
>> max_worker_processes_per_user.
>>
>> Besides the uses for background sessions, but it can also be useful for
>> parallel workers, logical replication apply workers, or things like
>> third-party partitioning extensions.
>
> Given that background sessions have been postponed, is there still
> interest in this separate from that? It would be useful for per-user
> parallel worker limits, for example.
Here is a slightly updated patch for consideration in the upcoming
commit fest.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-Add-max_worker_processes_per_user-setting.patch | text/plain | 5.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-08-24 00:45:58 | Re: One-shot expanded output in psql using \gx |
| Previous Message | Douglas Doole | 2017-08-23 22:55:45 | Re: [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery |