Re: Parallel query and temp_file_limit

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel query and temp_file_limit
Date: 2016-06-20 22:38:33
Message-ID: CAM3SWZRLNqFuFP9jhd-BcEa9z3+tD8zoyCpUHqsQvupzu5M=uQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> What I'm tempted to do is trying to document that, as a point of
> policy, parallel query in 9.6 uses up to (workers + 1) times the
> resources that a single session might use. That includes not only CPU
> but also things like work_mem and temp file space. This obviously
> isn't ideal, but it's what could be done by the ship date.

Where would that be documented, though? Would it need to be noted in
the case of each such GUC?

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-06-20 22:50:14 Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2016-06-20 22:20:12 Re: 10.0