pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lathia@gmail.com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: crashes due to setting max_parallel_workers=0
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:26:17 -0400
Message-ID: <32460.1490631977@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoZXZZtxrS-x5UWuB0ghA3or-dT=mVqcvnf+HOoq5jHjCQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6ecd6f17-0dcf-1de7-ded8-0de7db1ddc88@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CAKJS1f-jnPUKyeF5OGJPNDtkkqMGUOcK+Yn6qjPzP4bTU04WXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGPqQf2C6W8aNy9v9ZW2fJs+7p0MoBFfHEtXG8yypimGXTRUvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJS1f8x1ptsCidf2FpRXySUJfWLEMjSwxV8_kvozHFPQYaAow@mail.gmail.com>
	<b37482ff-6eac-ae1a-ea91-94e71247dce1@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CAGPqQf2RNNPfsOcK6Vb7bf+SifJU+yu_0yKuOnNHrzDQP-q1bA@mail.gmail.com>
	<e96d3112-26dd-d77d-7f8f-19b512ec4a02@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CAGPqQf2aGRD=Mx_8R7ZE7DV-nUE0gGoUX9qWJKxNZBmRR59n0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoayHMRFG5Zk=-8RQvpDCkr-g6G5L_AB9gPRjW+BN+SihA@mail.gmail.com>
	<16476.1490622853@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmoZXZZtxrS-x5UWuB0ghA3or-dT=mVqcvnf+HOoq5jHjCQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Since this has now come up twice, I suggest adding a comment there
>> that explains why we're intentionally ignoring max_parallel_workers.

> Good idea.  How about the attached?

WFM ... but seems like there should be some flavor of this statement
in the user-facing docs too (ie, "max_parallel_workers_per_gather >
max_parallel_workers is a bad idea unless you're trying to test what
happens when a plan can't get all the workers it planned for").  The
existing text makes some vague allusions suggesting that the two
GUCs might be interrelated, but I think it could be improved.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



view thread (30+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <32460.1490631977@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../32460.1490631977@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/32460.1490631977@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, rushabh.lathia@gmail.com, tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com
  Subject: Re: crashes due to setting max_parallel_workers=0
  In-Reply-To: <32460.1490631977@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* 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