Re: [HACKERS] CONNECTION LIMIT and Parallel Query don't play welltogether - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: [HACKERS] CONNECTION LIMIT and Parallel Query don't play welltogether
Date
Msg-id 948099d2-fce9-1121-926b-d6778e6c5398@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] CONNECTION LIMIT and Parallel Query don't play welltogether  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] CONNECTION LIMIT and Parallel Query don't play well together  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 4/6/17 15:01, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2/15/17 11:19, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> So I would like to have a background worker limit per user, as you
>> allude to.  Attached is a patch that implements a GUC setting
>> max_worker_processes_per_user.
>>
>> Besides the uses for background sessions, but it can also be useful for
>> parallel workers, logical replication apply workers, or things like
>> third-party partitioning extensions.
> 
> Given that background sessions have been postponed, is there still
> interest in this separate from that?  It would be useful for per-user
> parallel worker limits, for example.

Here is a slightly updated patch for consideration in the upcoming
commit fest.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Douglas Doole
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] One-shot expanded output in psql using \gx