Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
From: Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila
<amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>,
Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>,
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-06-02T19:52:09Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 06/02/2016 08:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: >> On 06/02/2016 04:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Well, I think we could drop node, if you like. I think parallel >>> wouldn't be good to drop, though, because it sounds like we want a >>> global limit on parallel workers also, and that can't be just >>> max_workers. So I think we should keep parallel in there for all of >>> them, and have max_parallel_workers and >>> max_parallel_workers_per_gather(_node). The reloption and the Path >>> struct field can be parallel_workers rather than parallel_degree. > >> So does that mean we'll rename it if you manage to implement a parameter >> which controls the number of workers for the whole statement? > > That would fit in as something like max_parallel_workers_per_statement. ETOOMANYKNOBS I'm trying to think of some way we can reasonably automate this for users ... -- -- Josh Berkus Red Hat OSAS (any opinions are my own)