On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> writes: >>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> What I'm tempted to do is trying to document that, as a point of >>>> policy, parallel query in 9.6 uses up to (workers + 1) times the >>>> resources that a single session might use. That includes not only CPU >>>> but also things like work_mem and temp file space. This obviously >>>> isn't ideal, but it's what could be done by the ship date. >> >>> Where would that be documented, though? Would it need to be noted in >>> the case of each such GUC? >> >> Why can't we just note this in the number-of-workers GUCs? It's not like >> there even *is* a GUC for many of our per-process resource consumption >> behaviors. > > +1.
Since Peter doesn't seem in a hurry to produce a patch for this issue, I wrote one. It is attached. I'll commit this in a day or two if nobody objects. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
parallel-workers-guc-doc.patch
Description: invalid/octet-stream
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
