public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedmax_worker_processes default not documented
4+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]
* max_worker_processes default not documented
@ 2016-05-08 03:16 David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
2016-05-12 13:20 ` Re: max_worker_processes default not documented Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: David G. Johnston @ 2016-05-08 03:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs
While this may be in the postgresql.conf it's absence in the docs is made
noticeable by the fact both the immediately preceding and subsequent items
in the 9.6 docs specify their default values. Furthermore,
max_parallel_degree defaults to 2 but the workers come from the pool sized
using max_worker_processes - provoking the very question as to how many is
2 relative to the default pool size.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/runtime-config-resource.html#GUC-MAX-PARALLEL-DEGREE
David J.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: max_worker_processes default not documented
2016-05-08 03:16 max_worker_processes default not documented David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
@ 2016-05-12 13:20 ` Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
2016-05-12 13:24 ` max_worker_processes default not documented David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Peter Eisentraut @ 2016-05-12 13:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>; pgsql-docs
On 5/7/16 11:16 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> While this may be in the postgresql.conf it's absence in the docs is made
> noticeable by the fact both the immediately preceding and subsequent items
> in the 9.6 docs specify their default values. Furthermore,
> max_parallel_degree defaults to 2 but the workers come from the pool sized
> using max_worker_processes - provoking the very question as to how many is
> 2 relative to the default pool size.
done
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* max_worker_processes default not documented
2016-05-08 03:16 max_worker_processes default not documented David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
2016-05-12 13:20 ` Re: max_worker_processes default not documented Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
@ 2016-05-12 13:24 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
2016-08-02 17:57 ` Re: max_worker_processes default not documented Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: David G. Johnston @ 2016-05-12 13:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
On Thursday, May 12, 2016, Peter Eisentraut <
[email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote:
> On 5/7/16 11:16 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
>> While this may be in the postgresql.conf it's absence in the docs is made
>> noticeable by the fact both the immediately preceding and subsequent items
>> in the 9.6 docs specify their default values. Furthermore,
>> max_parallel_degree defaults to 2 but the workers come from the pool sized
>> using max_worker_processes - provoking the very question as to how many is
>> 2 relative to the default pool size.
>>
>
> done
>
>
Thanks. Now for a related question. Are any of those workers permanently
in use? And what processes use them. I can think of checkpoint writer and
autovacuum off the top of my head that are potential candidates.
David J.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: max_worker_processes default not documented
2016-05-08 03:16 max_worker_processes default not documented David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
2016-05-12 13:20 ` Re: max_worker_processes default not documented Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
2016-05-12 13:24 ` max_worker_processes default not documented David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
@ 2016-08-02 17:57 ` Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Peter Eisentraut @ 2016-08-02 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs
On 5/12/16 9:24 AM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> Thanks. Now for a related question. Are any of those workers
> permanently in use? And what processes use them. I can think of
> checkpoint writer and autovacuum off the top of my head that are
> potential candidates.
max_worker_processes only controls "background workers". The other
facilities you mention don't count as such (confusingly perhaps).
Before 9.6, the only background workers were from extensions. In 9.6,
the parallel workers also use the background worker facilities and count
against max_worker_processes.
More documentation is possible here. I think maybe a section somewhere
that summarizes all the parallel-related settings. And also something
in the release notes noting that max_worker_processes is now also used
by built-in facilities, so you should increase it if you have previously
adjusted it for something.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-08-02 17:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-05-08 03:16 max_worker_processes default not documented David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
2016-05-12 13:20 ` Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
2016-05-12 13:24 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]>
2016-08-02 17:57 ` Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox