Horton
Menu

Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.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: 2016-06-09T22:11:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am in favor of having something similar to
>>> max_parallel_workers_per_gather for utility statements like CREATE
>>> INDEX. That will need a cost model, at least where the DBA isn't
>>> explicit about the number of workers to use.
>>
>> We may well need that, but I think it should be discussed in
>> conjunction with the patches that add parallelism for those utility
>> statements, rather than discussing it on a thread for a 9.6 open item.
>
> Of course.
>
> I don't think it needs to be scoped to utility statements. It's just
> clear that it's not appropriate to use max_parallel_workers_per_gather
> within utility statements, even though something like that will be
> needed.

True.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company