From: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
Date: | 2015-01-11 15:47:18 |
Message-ID: | 54B29B06.8010105@kaltenbrunner.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/11/2015 11:27 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>>> Yeah, if we come up with a plan for X workers and end up not being able
>>> to spawn that many then I could see that being worth a warning or notice
>>> or something. Not sure what EXPLAIN has to do anything with it..
>>
>> That seems mighty odd to me. If there are 8 background worker
>> processes available, and you allow each session to use at most 4, then
>> when there are >2 sessions trying to do parallelism at the same time,
>> they might not all get their workers. Emitting a notice for that
>> seems like it would be awfully chatty.
>
> Yeah, agreed, it could get quite noisy. Did you have another thought
> for how to address the concern raised? Specifically, that you might not
> get as many workers as you thought you would?
Wild idea: What about dealing with it as some sort of statistic - ie
track some global counts in the stats collector or on a per-query base
in pg_stat_activity and/or through pg_stat_statements?
Not sure why it is that important to get it on a per-query base, imho it
is simply a configuration limit we have set (similiar to work_mem or
when switching to geqo) - we dont report "per query" through
notice/warning there either (though the effect is kind visible in explain).
Stefan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-01-11 16:14:24 | Re: Using 128-bit integers for sum, avg and statistics aggregates |
Previous Message | Ravi Kiran | 2015-01-11 14:52:17 | Hash Function |