Re: separate serial_schedule useful?

From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: separate serial_schedule useful?
Date: 2017-10-09 10:42:19
Message-ID: CAFjFpRcbE+SAcZDXw4xVWuh0u=7Ui0mdPOeOW+d1YXo0gT1wpg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:

Sorry, my bad. I wasn't aware of this rule. I should have looked at
the beginning of the file for any rules.

>>> There's no reason why pg_regress couldn't have a
>>> --bail-if-group-size-exceeds=N argument, or why we couldn't have a
>>> separate Perl script to validate the schedule file as part of the
>>> build process.
>
>> I'd go for the former approach; seems like less new code and fewer cycles
>> used to enforce the rule.
>
> Concretely, how about the attached? (Obviously we'd have to fix
> parallel_schedule before committing this.)
>

Thanks, this will help. May be we should set default to 20 instead of unlimited.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2017-10-09 10:47:52 Re: PoC: full merge join on comparison clause
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2017-10-09 10:35:31 Re: Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table