On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5@gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem here seem to be the change in the max_parallel_workers value
> while the parallel workers are still under execution. So this poses two
> questions:
>
> 1. From usecase point of view, why could there be a need to tweak the
> max_parallel_workers exactly at the time when the parallel workers are at
> play.
> 2. Could there be a restriction on tweaking of max_parallel_workers while
> the parallel workers are at play? At least do not allow setting the
> max_parallel_workers less than the current # of active parallel workers.
Well, that would be letting the tail wag the dog. The maximum value
of max_parallel_workers is only 1024, and what we're really worried
about here is seeing a value near PG_UINT32_MAX, which leaves a lot of
daylight. How about just creating a #define that's used by guc.c as
the maximum for the GUC, and here we assert that we're <= that value?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
