Hi, On 2017-04-03 17:11:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> If this is 'make check', then we should have 8 parallel workers > >> allowed, so if we only do one of these at a time, then I think we're > >> OK. But if somebody changes that configuration setting or if it's > >> 'make installcheck', then the configuration could be anything. > > > > Hm - we already rely on max_parallel_workers_per_gather being set with > > some of the explains in the test. So I guess we're ok also relying on > > actual workers being present? > > I'm not really sure about that one way or the other. Our policy on > which configurations are supported vis-a-vis 'make installcheck' seems > to be, essentially, that if a sufficiently-prominent community member > cares about it, then it ends up getting made to work, unless an > even-more-prominent community member objects. That's why, for > example, our regression tests pass in Czech. I can't begin to guess > whether breaking installcheck against configurations with low values > of max_parallel_workers or max_worker_processes will bother anybody.
I guess we'll have to see. My personal conclusion is that greater coverage of parallelism is worth some very minor config trouble for people doing installcheck against clusters with non-default config. Thanks Rafia! - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
