From: Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.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 09:41:08 -0700
Message-ID: <574DBEA4.9000205@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <WM!782dde02eb02f131fac86b9aa0affdd2fa2450ae598af9554b103693ecd60442e44967d03f38f3b7cda9ff5b35da9166!@mailstronghold-2.zmailcloud.com>
References: <20160426152217.GA548975@alvherre.pgsql>
<CA+TgmoaDLa-pTjezHXb6S4HoNRM11TVGm_9GA9Ep+h4M_JWyLQ@mail.gmail.com>
<8309.1461684889@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CA+Tgmoa7uxyQ=gCgTUpzhc5V+biZspi9Cot8v0S96LiATgnoYQ@mail.gmail.com>
<8684.1461685466@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CA+TgmoYKkQigU+LeqVREnUvvd5eDx0ju8-i_QexbX_+BV0p0Fw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmobRmK649eDYvF6dgnQJNJVJvZffDz674wD+GWqCcb=YjQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1K9jEnnEs_xxR0b5MH_8RTybe22DfkufL=ksX2o-ZqCMw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKJS1f_kijB4EPpUrML2q=pourNnQB+WOdBuCCBSDc27BK_gvw@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoYjMmSx93onaoOSrWcsNHmD2GOegfyrKoJs=1tbhUMHeg@mail.gmail.com>
<20160529053300.GD496776@tornado.leadboat.com>
<CA+TgmoYqLP6dPpcLvWU-ToJFNn4Dp3NE2qAmgXprKN3S6wTSFw@mail.gmail.com>
<WM!782dde02eb02f131fac86b9aa0affdd2fa2450ae598af9554b103693ecd60442e44967d03f38f3b7cda9ff5b35da9166!@mailstronghold-2.zmailcloud.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
On 05/31/2016 09:15 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 02:52:30PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> OK, my reading of this thread is that there is a consensus is to
>>> redefine max_parallel_degree=1 as "no parallelism" and
>>> max_parallel_degree>1 as "parallelism using a leader plus N-1
>>> workers", and along with that, to keep the names unchanged. However,
>>> I don't think I can get that done before beta1, at least not without a
>>> serious risk of breaking stuff. I can look at this post-beta1.
>>
>> [This is a generic notification.]
>>
>> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Robert,
>> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
>> item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
>> 9.6 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on
>> open item ownership[1] and send a status update within 72 hours of this
>> message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may
>> discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
>> well in advance of shipping 9.6rc1. Consequently, I will appreciate your
>> efforts toward speedy resolution. Thanks.
>
> Here is a patch. Note that I still don't agree with this change, but
> I'm bowing to the will of the group.
>
> I think that some of the people who were in favor of this change
> should review this patch, including especially the language I wrote
> for the documentation. If that happens, and the reviews are positive,
> then I will commit this. If that does not happen, then I will
> interpret that to mean that there isn't actually all that much
> interest in changing this after all and will accordingly recommend
> that this open item be removed without further action.
>
> Here is a test which shows how it works:
>
> rhaas=# set max_parallel_degree = 100;
> SET
> rhaas=# alter table pgbench_accounts set (parallel_degree = 10);
> ALTER TABLE
> rhaas=# explain (analyze) select count(*) from pgbench_accounts;
>
> QUERY PLAN
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Finalize Aggregate (cost=177436.04..177436.05 rows=1 width=8)
> (actual time=383.244..383.244 rows=1 loops=1)
> -> Gather (cost=177435.00..177436.01 rows=10 width=8) (actual
> time=383.040..383.237 rows=9 loops=1)
> Workers Planned: 9
> Workers Launched: 8
I realize there's a lot of water under the bridge here, but I think
we're going to get 1000 questions on -general of the type: "I asked for
8 parallel workers, why did I only get 7?". I believe we will regret
this change.
So, one vote from me to revert.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
--
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: josh@agliodbs.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, noah@leadboat.com, david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, magnus@hagander.net, bruce@momjian.us
Subject: Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
In-Reply-To: <574DBEA4.9000205@agliodbs.com>
* 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