From: Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>
To: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.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: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:14:42 -0700
Message-ID: <575190D2.5050107@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <WM!f9d4a8faf69bc1b01ed651f15cfdc80563335d4b897cf3513020fb90dbd23514e8c8fc2810ca689c5858c7811ce6b8c0!@mailstronghold-2.zmailcloud.com>
References: <20160531202742.GA896974@alvherre.pgsql>
<5641.1464731894@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CA+TgmoZ-gU+fDip86kN3K9AHQNyuX_TZQrcDuBOL1aVhE_-h-g@mail.gmail.com>
<b9c23439-a1e8-6d86-9414-0aae3a1baa6e@BlueTreble.com>
<574F030F.7030108@2ndquadrant.com>
<CAKFQuwaky0NtdjOkU7mp1n=-WREcL6n2PKT28cTQzV7gNPWjbQ@mail.gmail.com>
<575105B4.60506@2ndquadrant.com>
<a2fffd92-6e59-a4eb-dd85-c5865ebca1a0@2ndquadrant.com>
<WM!f9d4a8faf69bc1b01ed651f15cfdc80563335d4b897cf3513020fb90dbd23514e8c8fc2810ca689c5858c7811ce6b8c0!@mailstronghold-2.zmailcloud.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
On 06/02/2016 09:33 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 6/3/16 12:21 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> On 01/06/16 17:55, David G. Johnston wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com
>>> <mailto:petr@2ndquadrant.com>>wrote:
>>>
>>> That GUC also controls worker processes that are started by
>>> extensions, not just ones that parallel query starts. This is btw
>>> one thing I don't like at all about how the current limits work, the
>>> parallel query will fight for workers with extensions because they
>>> share the same limit.
>>>
>>>
>>> ​Given that this models reality the GUC is doing its job. Now, maybe we
>>> need additional knobs to give the end-user the ability to influence how
>>> those fights will turn out.
>>
>> Agreed, my point is that I think we do need additional knob.
>
> We need one knob to control how many process slots to create at server
> start, and then a bunch of sliders to control how to allocate those
> between regular connections, superuser connections, replication,
> autovacuum, parallel workers, background workers (by tag/label/group),
> and so on.
Now that's crazy talk. I mean, next thing you'll be saying that we need
the ability to monitor this, or even change it at runtime. Where does
the madness end? ;-)
Seriously, you have a point here; it's maybe time to stop tackling
process management per server piecemeal. Question is, who wants to work
on this?
--
--
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, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, petr@2ndquadrant.com, david.g.johnston@gmail.com, Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, pg@heroku.com, noah@leadboat.com, david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, magnus@hagander.net, bruce@momjian.us
Subject: Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
In-Reply-To: <575190D2.5050107@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