| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Robert Haas <rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add max_parallel_workers GUC. |
| Date: | 2016-12-03 02:15:01 |
| Message-ID: | F9847DA0-DC8E-45EA-9252-7F7DFC7604DA@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 2, 2016, at 5:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> writes:
>>> On 12/2/16 2:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Signs point to "no". It seemed like a good idea to leave some daylight between max_parallel_workers and max_worker_processes, but evidently this wasn't the way to get there. Or else we should just give up on that thought.
>
>> Could the defaults be scaled based on max_connections, with a max on the
>> default?
>
> Might work. We've had very bad luck with GUC variables with
> interdependent defaults, but maybe the user-visible knob could be a
> percentage of max_connections or something like that.
Seems like overkill. Let's just reduce the values a bit.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-12-03 16:43:02 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add max_parallel_workers GUC. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-12-02 22:45:11 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add max_parallel_workers GUC. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-12-03 03:04:39 | Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in _hash_splitbucket_guts |
| Previous Message | Christian Convey | 2016-12-03 02:04:24 | Re: Tackling JsonPath support |