| From: | Evgeniy Shishkin <itparanoia(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Date: | 2018-01-10 20:29:58 |
| Message-ID: | AC921761-E0C2-46F9-80C9-858A3256F26F@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Jan 10, 2018, at 21:45, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> The documentation for max_parallel_workers_maintenance cribs from the
> documentation for max_parallel_workers_per_gather in saying that we'll
> use fewer workers than expected "which may be inefficient".
Can we actually call it max_parallel_maintenance_workers instead?
I mean we don't have work_mem_maintenance.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2018-01-10 20:32:14 | Re: let's make the list of reportable GUCs configurable (was Re: Add %r substitution for psql prompts to show recovery status) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-01-10 20:22:29 | Re: let's make the list of reportable GUCs configurable (was Re: Add %r substitution for psql prompts to show recovery status) |