Re: Choosing parallel_degree - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Choosing parallel_degree
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZ51FYTBGfbstbfMn0C7_jKpk1+ck27UX-pUwbCC3Kk8g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Choosing parallel_degree  (Julien Rouhaud <julien.rouhaud@dalibo.com>)
Responses Re: Choosing parallel_degree  (Julien Rouhaud <julien.rouhaud@dalibo.com>)
Re: Choosing parallel_degree  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Julien Rouhaud
<julien.rouhaud@dalibo.com> wrote:
> On 11/04/2016 22:53, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> On 11/04/2016 17:44, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> We should probably add the number of workers actually obtained to the
>>> EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.  That's been requested before.
>>
>> If it's not too late for 9.6, it would be very great.
>
> Just in case I attach a patch to implement it. I'll add it to the next
> commitfest.

I think we should go with "Workers Planned" and "Workers Launched",
capitalized exactly that way, and lose "Number Of".

I would be inclined to view this as a reasonable 9.6 cleanup of
parallel query, but other people may wish to construe things more
strictly than I would.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: SET ROLE and reserved roles
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold <