On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Julien Rouhaud
<julien.rouh...@dalibo.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot for the help!
>
> PFA v6 which should fix all the issues mentioned.
Couple of minor suggestions.
- <xref linkend="guc-max-worker-processes">. Note that the requested
+ <xref linkend="guc-max-worker-processes">, limited by
+ <xref linked="guc-max-parallel-workers">. Note that the requested
Typo.
/linked/linkend
You can always find such mistakes by doing make check in doc/src/sgml/
+ /*
+ * We need a memory barrier here to make sure the above test doesn't get
+ * reordered
+ */
+ pg_read_barrier();
/memory barrier/read barrier
+ if (max_parallel_workers == 0)
+ {
+ ereport(elevel,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
+ errmsg("background worker \"%s\": cannot request parallel worker if
no parallel worker allowed",
" ..no parallel worker is allowed". 'is' seems to be missing.
> Also, after second
> thought I didn't add the extra hint about max_worker_processes in the
> max_parallel_worker paragraph, since this line was a duplicate of the
> precedent paragraph, it seemed better to leave the text as is.
>
not a big problem, we can leave it for committer to decide on same.
However just by reading the description of max_parallel_worker, user
can set its value more than max_wroker_processes which we don't want.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
