Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoY1JLpFojGdXRuyHsh_4G3Ox1P_osHiqmpM9iQ0+Ljt_g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am in favor of having something similar to
>>> max_parallel_workers_per_gather for utility statements like CREATE
>>> INDEX. That will need a cost model, at least where the DBA isn't
>>> explicit about the number of workers to use.
>>
>> We may well need that, but I think it should be discussed in
>> conjunction with the patches that add parallelism for those utility
>> statements, rather than discussing it on a thread for a 9.6 open item.
>
> Of course.
>
> I don't think it needs to be scoped to utility statements. It's just
> clear that it's not appropriate to use max_parallel_workers_per_gather
> within utility statements, even though something like that will be
> needed.

True.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold <