On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: >> > Yeah, if we come up with a plan for X workers and end up not being able >> > to spawn that many then I could see that being worth a warning or notice >> > or something. Not sure what EXPLAIN has to do anything with it.. >> >> That seems mighty odd to me. If there are 8 background worker >> processes available, and you allow each session to use at most 4, then >> when there are >2 sessions trying to do parallelism at the same time, >> they might not all get their workers. Emitting a notice for that >> seems like it would be awfully chatty. > > Yeah, agreed, it could get quite noisy. Did you have another thought > for how to address the concern raised? Specifically, that you might not > get as many workers as you thought you would?
I'm not sure why that's a condition in need of special reporting. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
