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 <p...@2ndquadrant.com >>> <mailto:p...@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
