Re: max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta
Date: 2016-08-15 22:28:53
Message-ID: CA+TgmobKwBi5qTO_v4Smy0GbN0kFv_pXXX4OqiAJ4s4qpZLQjw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> Being cautious pays more in the long term, so seeing the number of
>> bugs that showed up I'd rather vote for having it disabled by default
>> in 9.6 stable, and enabled on master to aim at enabling it in 10.0.
>
> I too prefer to keep it turned off in 9.6 and consider enabling it by
> default on a future release (10 is probably good). Interested users can
> carefully test the feature without endangering other unsuspecting users.
>
> I agree with the idea of keeping it enabled in master, so that it'll get
> a modicum of testing there by hackers, too.

Sounds like that is the consensus. Who's going to implement it?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2016-08-15 22:37:34 Re: Index Onlys Scan for expressions
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-08-15 22:15:23 Re: LWLocks in DSM memory