On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Constantin S. Pan <kvapen(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The backend just waits for the results from the workers and merges them
> (in case wnum > 0). So the 1-worker configuration should never be used,
> because it is as sequential as the 0-worker, but adds data transfer.
This is why I wanted an easy way of atomically guaranteeing some
number of workers (typically 2), or not using parallelism at all. I
think the parallel worker API should offer a simple way to do that in
cases like this, where having only 1 worker is never going to win.
--
Peter Geoghegan