Re: CONNECTION LIMIT and Parallel Query don't play well together

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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
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
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

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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