Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Choosing parallel_degree - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From James Sewell
Subject Re: Choosing parallel_degree
Date
Msg-id CANkGpBsNZ1WM3NsSRrpqzO892OpmefBGO3DQ59LutYmVMFqUsA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Choosing parallel_degree  (Julien Rouhaud <julien.rouhaud@dalibo.com>)
Responses Re: Choosing parallel_degree
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Julien Rouhaud <julien.rouhaud@dalibo.com> wrote:

attached v3 drops the GUC part.

This looks good good. I do think that some threshold control would be good in the long term - but you are right Robert it just feels strange. 

Maybe once the final formula is implemented in 9.7+ and this gets some real world use cases it can be revisited?

One thing I really, really like about the way the new patch works is that you can set parallel_degree on an inheritance parent, then that will set the minimum workers for all associated children (when accessing from the parent).

Currently this patch will not fire on small tables even when parallel_degree is set, can we fix this by adding a check for ref->parallel_degree  to the table size condition?

Cheers,
James 

The contents of this email are confidential and may be subject to legal or professional privilege and copyright. No representation is made that this email is free of viruses or other defects. If you have received this communication in error, you may not copy or distribute any part of it or otherwise disclose its contents to anyone. Please advise the sender of your incorrect receipt of this correspondence.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] Integer overflow in timestamp[tz]_part() and date/time boundaries check
Next
From: Kouhei Kaigai
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification