| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: max_parallel_workers question |
| Date: | 2019-09-28 04:10:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZLaOUUfHv1S+ueUCyazHrR-YE6jSZ9mZiwgGcM7eDi-w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:07 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> The current docs for max_parallel_workers start out:
>
> "Sets the maximum number of workers that the system can support for
> parallel operations..."
>
> In my interpretation, "the system" means the entire cluster, but the
> max_parallel_workers setting is PGC_USERSET. That's a bit confusing,
> because two different backends can have different settings for "the
> maximum number ... the system can support".
Oops.
I intended it to mean "the entire cluster." Basically, how many
workers out of max_worker_processes are you willing to use for
parallel query, as opposed to other things. I agree that PGC_USERSET
doesn't make any sense.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-09-28 04:16:05 | Re: Consider low startup cost in add_partial_path |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-09-28 04:02:34 | contrib/bloom Valgrind error |