Re: ExecGather() + nworkers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: ExecGather() + nworkers
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZTykrOv0mo=cYKy=PGStbUc2VyiisatC6z-W3Ggda0DiQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ExecGather() + nworkers  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> With parallel sequential scan, a max_parallel_degree of 8 could result
> in 16 processes scanning in parallel.

I meant a max_worker_processes setting, which of course is different.
Nevertheless, I find it surprising that max_parallel_degree = 1 does
not prevent parallel operations, and that max_parallel_degree is
defined in terms of the availability of worker processes (in the
strict sense of worker processes that are launched by
LaunchParallelWorkers(), and not a broader and more practical
definition).

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: ExecGather() + nworkers
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: add pg_current_xlog_flush_location function