Re: [HACKERS] CONNECTION LIMIT and Parallel Query don't play welltogether - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: [HACKERS] CONNECTION LIMIT and Parallel Query don't play welltogether
Date
Msg-id eed08ec2-b199-54f4-eba0-f962569f7874@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] CONNECTION LIMIT and Parallel Query don't play welltogether  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] CONNECTION LIMIT and Parallel Query don't play welltogether  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2/15/17 11:19, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> So I would like to have a background worker limit per user, as you
> allude to.  Attached is a patch that implements a GUC setting
> max_worker_processes_per_user.
> 
> Besides the uses for background sessions, but it can also be useful for
> parallel workers, logical replication apply workers, or things like
> third-party partitioning extensions.

Given that background sessions have been postponed, is there still
interest in this separate from that?  It would be useful for per-user
parallel worker limits, for example.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Fast Default WIP patch for discussion
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique