Re: simple patch for discussion - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Maciek Sakrejda
Subject Re: simple patch for discussion
Date
Msg-id CAOtHd0AETV0iyJDMHY3r9cQE3WapSQARcOUWrTN79sJfyaWKRQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: simple patch for discussion  (Greg Hennessy <greg.hennessy@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
 On 7/16/25 11:01 PM, David Rowley wrote:
> Is "alter table ... set (parallel_workers=N);" not easy enough?

No opinions on the merit of the patch, but it's not as easy as better
default behavior, right? That is, the important questions are whether
the proposed behavior is better, and whether the change in default
behavior is likely to cause any problems. If there's uncertainty about
those, the options for a workaround are, of course, relevant.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Laurenz Albe
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 16 bug feedback
Next
From: Jacob Champion
Date:
Subject: Re: libpq: Process buffered SSL read bytes to support records >8kB on async API