| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers |
| Date: | 2020-10-05 02:19:41 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZyNu1orkCkG8us=spULFOdLn6MiPGngw+ZK-VVZU6SrQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 7:03 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> But the same is true for the 'Create Index' operation as well where we
> follow the same thing. We will use the number of workers as specified
> in reloption (parallel_workers) which is then limited by
> max_parallel_maintenance_workers.
Well, that seems pretty weird to me too, but surely we want them both
to be consistent.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-10-05 02:21:19 | Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers |
| Previous Message | James Coleman | 2020-10-05 01:40:33 | Re: enable_incremental_sort changes query behavior |