| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Robert Haas <rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add max_parallel_workers GUC. |
| Date: | 2016-12-03 16:43:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20841.1480783382@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Dec 2, 2016, at 5:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Might work. We've had very bad luck with GUC variables with
>> interdependent defaults, but maybe the user-visible knob could be a
>> percentage of max_connections or something like that.
> Seems like overkill. Let's just reduce the values a bit.
Agreed. How about max_worker_processes = 8 as before, with
max_parallel_workers of maybe 6? Or just set them both to 8.
I'm not sure that the out-of-the-box configuration needs to
leave backend slots locked down for non-parallel worker processes.
Any such process would require manual configuration anyway no?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2016-12-03 20:55:05 | pgsql: Refine win32env.c cosmetics. |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-12-03 02:15:01 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add max_parallel_workers GUC. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tobias Bussmann | 2016-12-03 17:42:21 | Re: Parallel execution and prepared statements |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2016-12-03 15:30:27 | Re: Proposal: scan key push down to heap [WIP] |