Re: max_parallel_workers question

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: max_parallel_workers question
Date: 2023-11-08 21:15:21
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:10:53AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:07 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> > The current docs for max_parallel_workers start out:
> >
> > "Sets the maximum number of workers that the system can support for
> > parallel operations..."
> >
> > In my interpretation, "the system" means the entire cluster, but the
> > max_parallel_workers setting is PGC_USERSET. That's a bit confusing,
> > because two different backends can have different settings for "the
> > maximum number ... the system can support".
> Oops.
> I intended it to mean "the entire cluster." Basically, how many
> workers out of max_worker_processes are you willing to use for
> parallel query, as opposed to other things. I agree that PGC_USERSET
> doesn't make any sense.

I found two places there "custer" was better than "system", so I applied
the attached patch to master.

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

Only you can decide what is important to you.

Attachment Content-Type Size
master.diff text/x-diff 975 bytes

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2023-11-08 21:21:25 Re: Syncrep and improving latency due to WAL throttling
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2023-11-08 20:49:59 Re: XID-wraparound hazards in LISTEN/NOTIFY