Subject: Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
References: <20160426152217.GA548975@alvherre.pgsql>
 <20160529053300.GD496776@tornado.leadboat.com>
 <CA+TgmoYqLP6dPpcLvWU-ToJFNn4Dp3NE2qAmgXprKN3S6wTSFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <WM!782dde02eb02f131fac86b9aa0affdd2fa2450ae598af9554b103693ecd60442e44967d03f38f3b7cda9ff5b35da9166!@mailstronghold-2.zmailcloud.com>
 <574DBEA4.9000205@agliodbs.com> <8716.1464714201@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <WM!fa29cdfaada6f23ea036083b3b09c992113c0dd0d39c12a9cb6f842c5da62c7ec3f6f29cf1a792b4d2a344288b7c1492!@mailstronghold-2.zmailcloud.com>
 <574DC585.7010507@agliodbs.com>
 <CAM3SWZR6cd4v-LMmu9hoMR0pRVH9hKPSchEyH=v6BOo7OdhY5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <WM!4d4bffdc428f6cc6f750204a44dd53cae60035c32efd88a025cf336cd84efaf89a3b03b6e585b4ba6d94b14cd3339b6b!@mailstronghold-3.zmailcloud.com>
 <574DC881.5010006@agliodbs.com>
 <CAM3SWZS_zL8Wx-zdo_LBJu4ggVqSQZrB_be2Ht1euWQ_AbLerA@mail.gmail.com>
 <WM!03d2e4eb6a54be412896ebf7a163e0e3ca3c30ba669ab43e75f184e0eb3fee6c99a96f58b016bffa9bc4be5b1606e6be!@mailstronghold-3.zmailcloud.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
 Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>,
 Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
 Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
 PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
From: Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Message-ID: <574DCDFC.6060506@agliodbs.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 10:46:36 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <WM!03d2e4eb6a54be412896ebf7a163e0e3ca3c30ba669ab43e75f184e0eb3fee6c99a96f58b016bffa9bc4be5b1606e6be!@mailstronghold-3.zmailcloud.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 05/31/2016 10:38 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> It's still WAY simpler to understand "max_parallel is the number of
>> parallel workers I requested".
> 
> (Sorry Josh, somehow hit reply, not reply-all)
> 
> Yes, it is. But as long as parallel workers are not really that
> distinct to the leader-as-worker when executing a parallel query, then
> you have another consideration. Which is that you need to care about
> how many cores your query uses first and foremost, and not the number
> of parallel workers used. I don't think that having only one worker
> will cause too much confusion, because users will trust that we won't
> allow something that simply makes no sense to happen.
> 
> In my parallel create index patch, the leader participates as a worker
> to scan and sort runs. It's identical to a worker, practically
> speaking, at least until time comes to merge those runs. Similarly,
> parallel aggregate does not really have much for the leader process to
> do other than act as a worker.

In parallel seq scan and join, do the "masters" behave as workers as well?


-- 
--
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