On 06/02/2016 08:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> On 06/02/2016 04:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Well, I think we could drop node, if you like. I think parallel
>>> wouldn't be good to drop, though, because it sounds like we want a
>>> global limit on parallel workers also, and that can't be just
>>> max_workers. So I think we should keep parallel in there for all of
>>> them, and have max_parallel_workers and
>>> max_parallel_workers_per_gather(_node). The reloption and the Path
>>> struct field can be parallel_workers rather than parallel_degree.
>
>> So does that mean we'll rename it if you manage to implement a parameter
>> which controls the number of workers for the whole statement?
>
> That would fit in as something like max_parallel_workers_per_statement.
ETOOMANYKNOBS
I'm trying to think of some way we can reasonably automate this for
users ...
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
