| From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] force_parallel_mode and GUC categories |
| Date: | 2021-04-23 18:23:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20210423182326.GK7256@telsasoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 03:57:21PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 07:31:39AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Good point.
>
> Thanks. I have used the wording that Tom has proposed upthread, added
> one GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE that you forgot, and applied the
> force_parallel_mode patch.
Thanks. It just occured to me to ask if we should backpatch it.
The goal is to avoid someone trying to use this as a peformance option.
It's to their benefit and ours if they don't do that on v10-13 for the next 5
years, not just v14-17.
The patch seems to apply cleanly on v12 but cherry-pick needs help for other
branches...
--
Justin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2021-04-23 18:29:08 | Re: pg_amcheck contrib application |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-04-23 18:15:19 | Re: pg_amcheck contrib application |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-04-24 01:50:21 | Re: [PATCH] force_parallel_mode and GUC categories |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2021-04-22 20:51:57 | Re: hint in determining effective_io_concurrency |