| From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Date: | 2015-01-02 10:00:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAA-aLv7Y35NtWxSDT8Mxu0DYix3LVq2v376rNmMmjn+LfCnsog@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1 January 2015 at 17:59, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Can we check the number of free bgworkers slots to set the max workers?
>
> The real solution here is that this patch can't throw an error if it's
> unable to obtain the desired number of background workers. It needs
> to be able to smoothly degrade to a smaller number of background
> workers, or none at all. I think a lot of this work will fall out
> quite naturally if this patch is reworked to use the parallel
> mode/parallel context stuff, the latest version of which includes an
> example of how to set up a parallel scan in such a manner that it can
> run with any number of workers.
>
+1
That sounds like exactly what's needed.
Thom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-01-02 10:36:23 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-01-02 09:57:34 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |