| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: crashes due to setting max_parallel_workers=0 |
| Date: | 2017-03-27 11:59:27 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoayHMRFG5Zk=-8RQvpDCkr-g6G5L_AB9gPRjW+BN+SihA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Rushabh Lathia
<rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> But it seems a bit futile to produce the parallel plan in the first place,
>> because with max_parallel_workers=0 we can't possibly get any parallel
>> workers ever. I wonder why compute_parallel_worker() only looks at
>> max_parallel_workers_per_gather, i.e. why shouldn't it do:
>>
>> parallel_workers = Min(parallel_workers, max_parallel_workers);
>>
>> Perhaps this was discussed and is actually intentional, though.
>>
>
> Yes, I am not quite sure about this.
It was intentional. See the last paragraph of
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2017-03-27 11:59:32 | Re: Re: proposal - psql: possibility to specify sort for describe commands, when size is printed |
| Previous Message | Kang Yuzhe | 2017-03-27 11:56:32 | On How To Shorten The Steep Learning Curve Towards PG Hacking |