Re: max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta
Date: 2016-04-21 18:07:41
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZ5w4kM3ZDMHsitQD+hVcYF28wPFo1EwiRAMPnJ46spuA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>>>> max_parallel_degree currently defaults to 0. I think we should enable
>>>> it by default for at least the beta period. Otherwise we're primarily
>>>> going to get reports back after the release.
>
>> So, I suggest that the only sensible non-zero values here are probably
>> "1" or "2", given a default pool of 8 worker processes system-wide.
>> Andres told me yesterday he'd vote for "2". Any other opinions?
>
> It has to be at least 2 for beta purposes, else you are not testing
> situations with more than one worker process at all, which would be
> rather a large omission no?

That's what Andres, thought, too. From my point of view, the big
thing is to be using workers at all. It is of course possible that
there could be some bugs where a single worker is not enough, but
there's a lot of types of bug where even one worker would probably
find the problem. But I'm OK with changing the default to 2.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-04-21 18:11:39 Re: [BUGS] Breakage with VACUUM ANALYSE + partitions
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-04-21 18:05:28 Re: pg_stat_activity crashes