| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(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: | 2016-06-03 12:20:28 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobYokvKzbFUF+HuA-kr=RJYAb49MxJJbXoYNEy4Rz-CgA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> I was assuming that we would have *both* per-operation and per-statement
> limits. I can see reasons for having both, I can see why power users
> would want both, but it's going to be overwhelming to casual users.
I don't think so. I think the fact that this is per-gather-node
rather than per-statement right now is basically a defect. Once we
have a per-statement limit, I see no value in having the
per-gather-node setting. So, yes, at that point, I would push to
rename the GUC.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-06-03 12:27:38 | Re: Prepared statements and generic plans |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2016-06-03 11:57:18 | Problem with dumping bloom extension |