Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I share your general feelings on all of this, but I really don't know
>>> what to do about it. Which of these alternatives is the least worst,
>>> all things considered?
>>
>> Let's get the patch committed without any explicit way of forcing the
>> number of workers and then think about adding that later.
>
> It could be argued that you need some way of forcing low memory in
> workers with any committed version. So while this sounds reasonable,
> it might not be compatible with throwing out what I've done with
> force_parallel_mode up-front, before you commit anything. What do you
> think?

I think the force_parallel_mode thing is too ugly to live. I'm not
sure that forcing low memory in workers is a thing we need to have,
but if we do, then we'll have to invent some other way to have it.

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