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

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
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: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 08:33:03 -0700
Message-ID: <575051AF.2090101@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <WM!805040707366f5cdb3300e025b7980c02089ce1331b645738e0eed164506a414e003d0d5027fbf21b435d5f3062c9bcf!@mailstronghold-1.zmailcloud.com>
References: <20160426152217.GA548975@alvherre.pgsql>
	<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>
	<CAA4eK1J+mSjzoWLXe=azqrLDN9KQqPcf7T5=SKbTFWMZHBS5kA@mail.gmail.com>
	<17944.1464790245@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmoYZtSDViK2ana7NmPkOGX+wpTUjY2iO4whEhsePmtJDjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<7570.1464816591@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmoZehxRoiby6Nj9mFO5pz6Ufdd9-bqa9e0zrKsgOZas7TQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<WM!805040707366f5cdb3300e025b7980c02089ce1331b645738e0eed164506a414e003d0d5027fbf21b435d5f3062c9bcf!@mailstronghold-1.zmailcloud.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

On 06/02/2016 04:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

> Well, I think we could drop node, if you like.  I think parallel
> wouldn't be good to drop, though, because it sounds like we want a
> global limit on parallel workers also, and that can't be just
> max_workers.  So I think we should keep parallel in there for all of
> them, and have max_parallel_workers and
> max_parallel_workers_per_gather(_node).  The reloption and the Path
> struct field can be parallel_workers rather than parallel_degree.

So does that mean we'll rename it if you manage to implement a parameter
which controls the number of workers for the whole statement?


-- 
--
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



view thread (185+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <575051AF.2090101@agliodbs.com>
Permalink:  ../575051AF.2090101@agliodbs.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/575051AF.2090101@agliodbs.com

 · 

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: josh@agliodbs.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, pg@heroku.com, noah@leadboat.com, david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, magnus@hagander.net, bruce@momjian.us
  Subject: Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
  In-Reply-To: <575051AF.2090101@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