| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(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: | 2016-05-31 17:30:36 |
| Message-ID: | 9816.1464715836@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> On 05/31/2016 10:16 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> But the distinction between parallel workers and backends that can
>> participate in parallel query does need to be user-visible. Worker
>> processes are a commodity (i.e. the user must consider
>> max_worker_processes).
> It's still WAY simpler to understand "max_parallel is the number of
> parallel workers I requested".
> Any system where you set it to 2 and get only 1 worker on an idle system
> is going to cause endless queries on the mailing lists.
I really think that a GUC named "max_parallel_workers", which in fact
limits the number of workers and not something else, is the way to go.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-05-31 17:38:26 | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-31 17:24:45 | Re: Re: PATCH: Split stats file per database WAS: autovacuum stress-testing our system |