On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
On 06/02/2016 08:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: >> On 06/02/2016 04:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Well, I think we could drop node, if you like. I think parallel >>> wouldn't be good to drop, though, because it sounds like we want a >>> global limit on parallel workers also, and that can't be just >>> max_workers. So I think we should keep parallel in there for all of >>> them, and have max_parallel_workers and >>> max_parallel_workers_per_gather(_node). The reloption and the Path >>> struct field can be parallel_workers rather than parallel_degree. > >> So does that mean we'll rename it if you manage to implement a parameter >> which controls the number of workers for the whole statement? > > That would fit in as something like max_parallel_workers_per_statement.
ETOOMANYKNOBS
I'm trying to think of some way we can reasonably automate this for users ...
Are you referring to right now or if we move the goal posts to making this a per-statement reservation?
