Amit Kapila <amit.kapila@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> min_parallel_relation_size, or min_parallelizable_relation_size, or
>> something like that?
> You are right that such a variable will make it simpler to write tests for
> parallel query. I have implemented such a guc and choose to keep the name
> as min_parallel_relation_size.
Pushed with minor adjustments. My first experiments with this say that
we should have done this long ago:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/22782.1466100870@sss.pgh.pa.us
> One thing to note is that in function
> create_plain_partial_paths(), curently it is using PG_INT32_MAX/3 for
> parallel_threshold to check for overflow, I have changed it to INT_MAX/3 so
> as to be consistent with guc.c. I am not sure if it is advisable to use
> PG_INT32_MAX in guc.c as other similar parameters use INT_MAX.
I agree that using INT_MAX is more consistent with the code elsewhere in
guc.c, and more correct given that we declare the variable in question
as int not int32. But you need to include <limits.h> to use INT_MAX ...
regards, tom lane
