On 06/02/2016 08:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh berkus <j...@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
