| From: | Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Evgeniy Shishkin <itparanoia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Date: | 2018-01-11 06:17:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAGPqQf1rJvnXE8tvbbrgfrCOF1hP0QuJfyrOprQUCrXX4KBHVA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 3:35 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >> Can we actually call it max_parallel_maintenance_workers instead?
> >> I mean we don't have work_mem_maintenance.
> >
> > Good point.
>
> WFM.
>
>
This is good point. I agree with max_parallel_maintenance_workers.
> --
> Peter Geoghegan
>
--
Rushabh Lathia
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2018-01-11 06:21:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table |
| Previous Message | Amit Khandekar | 2018-01-11 05:18:15 | Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key |