From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: crashes due to setting max_parallel_workers=0 |
Date: | 2017-03-27 16:35:50 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaophiK9by9DSxx-ssB_gHbr3m-n6FqGKcX6=cvzMQ6Zw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Since this has now come up twice, I suggest adding a comment there
>>> that explains why we're intentionally ignoring max_parallel_workers.
>
>> Good idea. How about the attached?
>
> WFM ... but seems like there should be some flavor of this statement
> in the user-facing docs too (ie, "max_parallel_workers_per_gather >
> max_parallel_workers is a bad idea unless you're trying to test what
> happens when a plan can't get all the workers it planned for"). The
> existing text makes some vague allusions suggesting that the two
> GUCs might be interrelated, but I think it could be improved.
Do you have a more specific idea? I mean, this seems like a
degenerate case of what the documentation for
max_parallel_workers_per_gather says already. Even if
max_parallel_workers_per_gather <= Min(max_worker_processes,
max_parallel_workers), it's quite possible that you'll regularly be
generating plans that can't obtain the budgeted number of workers.
The only thing that is really special about the case where
max_parallel_workers_per_gather > Min(max_worker_processes,
max_parallel_workers) is that this can happen even on an
otherwise-idle system. I'm not quite sure how to emphasize that
without seeming to state the obvious.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rushabh Lathia | 2017-03-27 16:36:57 | Re: crashes due to setting max_parallel_workers=0 |
Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2017-03-27 16:34:31 | Re: Potential data loss of 2PC files |