Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.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: 2016-06-09T22:09:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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. -- Peter Geoghegan