| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ExecGather() + nworkers |
| Date: | 2016-01-10 21:57:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZTykrOv0mo=cYKy=PGStbUc2VyiisatC6z-W3Ggda0DiQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> With parallel sequential scan, a max_parallel_degree of 8 could result
> in 16 processes scanning in parallel.
I meant a max_worker_processes setting, which of course is different.
Nevertheless, I find it surprising that max_parallel_degree = 1 does
not prevent parallel operations, and that max_parallel_degree is
defined in terms of the availability of worker processes (in the
strict sense of worker processes that are launched by
LaunchParallelWorkers(), and not a broader and more practical
definition).
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-01-10 21:59:35 | Re: PATCH: add pg_current_xlog_flush_location function |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-01-10 21:44:45 | Re: ExecGather() + nworkers |