| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CONNECTION LIMIT and Parallel Query don't play well together |
| Date: | 2017-04-06 19:01:29 |
| Message-ID: | eed08ec2-b199-54f4-eba0-f962569f7874@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/15/17 11:19, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> So I would like to have a background worker limit per user, as you
> allude to. Attached is a patch that implements a GUC setting
> max_worker_processes_per_user.
>
> Besides the uses for background sessions, but it can also be useful for
> parallel workers, logical replication apply workers, or things like
> third-party partitioning extensions.
Given that background sessions have been postponed, is there still
interest in this separate from that? It would be useful for per-user
parallel worker limits, for example.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-04-06 19:26:35 | Re: Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-04-06 18:56:12 | Re: Fast Default WIP patch for discussion |