Re: max_parallel_workers question - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: max_parallel_workers question
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZLaOUUfHv1S+ueUCyazHrR-YE6jSZ9mZiwgGcM7eDi-w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to max_parallel_workers question  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Responses Re: max_parallel_workers question
Re: max_parallel_workers question
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:07 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> The current docs for max_parallel_workers start out:
>
> "Sets the maximum number of workers that the system can support for
> parallel operations..."
>
> In my interpretation, "the system" means the entire cluster, but the
> max_parallel_workers setting is PGC_USERSET. That's a bit confusing,
> because two different backends can have different settings for "the
> maximum number ... the system can support".

Oops.

I intended it to mean "the entire cluster." Basically, how many
workers out of max_worker_processes are you willing to use for
parallel query, as opposed to other things. I agree that PGC_USERSET
doesn't make any sense.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: contrib/bloom Valgrind error
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Consider low startup cost in add_partial_path