Re: simple patch for discussion

From: Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Greg Hennessy <greg(dot)hennessy(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: simple patch for discussion
Date: 2025-07-17 16:44:47
Message-ID: CAOtHd0AETV0iyJDMHY3r9cQE3WapSQARcOUWrTN79sJfyaWKRQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 7/16/25 11:01 PM, David Rowley wrote:
> Is "alter table ... set (parallel_workers=N);" not easy enough?

No opinions on the merit of the patch, but it's not as easy as better
default behavior, right? That is, the important questions are whether
the proposed behavior is better, and whether the change in default
behavior is likely to cause any problems. If there's uncertainty about
those, the options for a workaround are, of course, relevant.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jacob Champion 2025-07-17 16:48:29 Re: libpq: Process buffered SSL read bytes to support records >8kB on async API
Previous Message Laurenz Albe 2025-07-17 16:21:56 Re: PostgreSQL 16 bug feedback