On 06/02/2016 01:08 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com
> <mailto:josh@agliodbs.com>>wrote:
>
> On 06/02/2016 08:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com <mailto: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 ...
>
>
> Are you referring to right now or if we move the goal posts to making
> this a per-statement reservation?
I was assuming that we would have *both* per-operation and per-statement
limits. I can see reasons for having both, I can see why power users
would want both, but it's going to be overwhelming to casual users.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
