Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(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: 2016-06-09 22:11:07
Message-ID: CA+TgmoY1JLpFojGdXRuyHsh_4G3Ox1P_osHiqmpM9iQ0+Ljt_g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I am in favor of having something similar to
>>> max_parallel_workers_per_gather for utility statements like CREATE
>>> INDEX. That will need a cost model, at least where the DBA isn't
>>> explicit about the number of workers to use.
>>
>> We may well need that, but I think it should be discussed in
>> conjunction with the patches that add parallelism for those utility
>> statements, rather than discussing it on a thread for a 9.6 open item.
>
> Of course.
>
> I don't think it needs to be scoped to utility statements. It's just
> clear that it's not appropriate to use max_parallel_workers_per_gather
> within utility statements, even though something like that will be
> needed.

True.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2016-06-09 22:28:56 Re: 9.4 -> 9.5 regression with queries through pgbouncer on RHEL 6
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-06-09 22:09:54 Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?