Re: max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: 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: 2016-04-21 17:35:32
Message-ID: CA+TgmobLbmZ9qkHH-0=bux3kBwcs3n5UK4i0MCSgWscE=W_c6Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> max_parallel_degree currently defaults to 0. I think we should enable
>> it by default for at least the beta period. Otherwise we're primarily
>> going to get reports back after the release.
>
>> Then, at the end of beta, we can decide what the default should be.
>
> +1, but let's put an entry on the 9.6 open-items page to remind us to
> make that decision at the right time.

So, I suggest that the only sensible non-zero values here are probably
"1" or "2", given a default pool of 8 worker processes system-wide.
Andres told me yesterday he'd vote for "2". Any other opinions?

--
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 Amit Langote 2016-04-21 17:39:01 Re: Description of ForeignPath
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-04-21 17:33:23 Re: Fix of doc for synchronous_standby_names.