Subject: Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20160426152217.GA548975@alvherre.pgsql>
 <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>
 <575051AF.2090101@agliodbs.com> <21660.1464882811@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <WM!724b24b17b93e28a639b08a6942b6a6157bfdd1279efab51af9a99d9a9c64a20e4b0cbbd1a06bbecfc8587389a6f6b67!@mailstronghold-1.zmailcloud.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila
 <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>,
 Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.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: <57508E69.9000505@agliodbs.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 12:52:09 -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!724b24b17b93e28a639b08a6942b6a6157bfdd1279efab51af9a99d9a9c64a20e4b0cbbd1a06bbecfc8587389a6f6b67!@mailstronghold-1.zmailcloud.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 06/02/2016 08:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> 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?
> 
> That would fit in as something like max_parallel_workers_per_statement.

ETOOMANYKNOBS

I'm trying to think of some way we can reasonably automate this for
users ...

-- 
--
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