From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 15:55:53 -0400
Message-ID: <20160531195553.GA895326@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoYDgun=1fmiekOKxrgqxBrz6nF==fS2ZraSBmi4pf2TfQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
Robert Haas wrote:
> Also, I think that we might actually want to add an
> additional GUC to prevent the parallel query system from consuming the
> entire pool of processes established by max_worker_processes. If
> you're doing anything else with worker processes on your system, you
> might well want to say, well, it's OK to have up to 20 worker
> processes, but at most 10 of those can be used for parallel queries,
> so that the other 10 are guaranteed to be available for whatever other
> stuff I'm running that uses the background process facility. It's
> worth remembering that the background worker stuff was originally
> invented by Alvaro to allow users to run daemons, not for parallel
> query.
Agreed -- things like pglogical and BDR rely on background workers to do
their jobs. Many other users of bgworkers have popped up, so I think
it'd be a bad idea if parallel queries are able to monopolize all the
available slots.
> So I think in the long run we should have three limits:
>
> 1. Cluster-wide limit on number of worker processes for all purposes
> (currently, max_worker_processes).
>
> 2. Cluster-wide limit on number of worker processes for parallelism
> (don't have this yet).
>
> 3. Per-operation limit on number of worker processes for parallelism
> (currently, max_parallel_degree).
>
> Whatever we rename, there needs to be enough semantic space between #1
> and #3 to allow for the possibility - I think the very likely
> possibility - that we will eventually also want #2.
max_background_workers sounds fine to me for #1, and I propose to add #2
in 9.6 rather than wait. max_total_parallel_query_workers ? I already
presented my proposal for #3 which, as you noted, nobody endorsed.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, josh@agliodbs.com, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, pg@heroku.com, noah@leadboat.com, david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, magnus@hagander.net, bruce@momjian.us
Subject: Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
In-Reply-To: <20160531195553.GA895326@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox