Re: strange parallel query behavior after OOM crashes
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5@gmail.com>
Cc: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-04-06T01:20:15Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5@gmail.com> wrote: > The problem here seem to be the change in the max_parallel_workers value > while the parallel workers are still under execution. So this poses two > questions: > > 1. From usecase point of view, why could there be a need to tweak the > max_parallel_workers exactly at the time when the parallel workers are at > play. > 2. Could there be a restriction on tweaking of max_parallel_workers while > the parallel workers are at play? At least do not allow setting the > max_parallel_workers less than the current # of active parallel workers. Well, that would be letting the tail wag the dog. The maximum value of max_parallel_workers is only 1024, and what we're really worried about here is seeing a value near PG_UINT32_MAX, which leaves a lot of daylight. How about just creating a #define that's used by guc.c as the maximum for the GUC, and here we assert that we're <= that value? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Commits
-
Add an Assert() to max_parallel_workers enforcement.
- 6599c9ac3340 10.0 landed
-
Fix confusion of max_parallel_workers mechanism following crash.
- 8ff518699f19 10.0 landed
-
Add max_parallel_workers GUC.
- b460f5d66931 10.0 cited