From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: max_parallel_workers question |
Date: | 2023-11-08 21:15:21 |
Message-ID: | ZUv6ad4X3AxVRece@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:10:53AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:07 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> > The current docs for max_parallel_workers start out:
> >
> > "Sets the maximum number of workers that the system can support for
> > parallel operations..."
> >
> > In my interpretation, "the system" means the entire cluster, but the
> > max_parallel_workers setting is PGC_USERSET. That's a bit confusing,
> > because two different backends can have different settings for "the
> > maximum number ... the system can support".
>
> Oops.
>
> I intended it to mean "the entire cluster." Basically, how many
> workers out of max_worker_processes are you willing to use for
> parallel query, as opposed to other things. I agree that PGC_USERSET
> doesn't make any sense.
I found two places there "custer" was better than "system", so I applied
the attached patch to master.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Only you can decide what is important to you.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
master.diff | text/x-diff | 975 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-11-08 21:21:25 | Re: Syncrep and improving latency due to WAL throttling |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-11-08 20:49:59 | Re: XID-wraparound hazards in LISTEN/NOTIFY |