From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(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: | 2016-05-31 19:37:52 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZZgs0A_u2-YtYBWZDQPO3xGiQ9ER5AMvsuht2A=G6ubQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wrote:
> > At the risk of opening another can of worms, what about renaming
> > max_worker_processes as well? It would be a good thing if that
> > had "cluster" in it somewhere, or something that indicates it's a
> > system-wide value not a per-session value. "max_workers_per_cluster"
> > would answer, though I'm not in love with it particularly.
>
> Actually, after a bit more thought, maybe "max_background_workers" would
> be a good name? That matches its existing documentation more closely:
>
> Sets the maximum number of background processes that the system
> can support. This parameter can only be set at server start. The
> default is 8.
>
> However, that would still leave us with max_background_workers as the
> cluster-wide limit and max_parallel_workers as the per-query-node limit.
> That naming isn't doing all that much to clarify the distinction.
>
>
Node execution is serial, right?
I know work_mem has a provision about possibly using multiples of the
maximum in a single query...
The per-node dynamic does seem important to at least well-document so that
when users see 3 workers on one explain node and 2 on another they aren't
left scratching their heads. We don't reserve a set number of workers
per-statement but rather they are retrieved as needed during query
execution.
I think I see the same amount of added value in tacking on 'per_cluster" as
you do in adding "additional" to get "max_additional_parallel_workers" -
though further refinement of trying to actively NOT consider a leader a
worker would support the omission of addition[al]...
If we left max_worker_processes as defining only the maximum allowed
non-parallel workers and added a new "max_cluster_workers" that would cap
the combination of both "max_worker_processes" and "max_parallel_workers"...
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-05-31 19:38:38 | Re: [PATCH][Documination] Add optional USING keyword before opclass name in INSERT statemet |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-05-31 19:35:51 | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |