if I "alter table allwise set (parallel_workers = 64);" then I can get 64
workers. I wonder if the code
to check the rel_parallel_workers do deal with the default algorithm not
allocating sufficient
parallel_workers.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 2:54 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Hennessy writes:
> >>
Greg Hennessy writes:
>> Postgres has chosen to use only a small fraction of the CPU's I have on
>> my machine. Given the query returns an answer in about 8 seconds, it may be
>> that Postgresql has allocated the proper number of works. But if I wanted
>> to try to tweak some config parameters to
g
On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 2:11 PM Weck, Luis wrote:
> *From: *Greg Hennessy
> *Date: *Thursday, July 10, 2025 at 4:40 PM
> *To: * pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org <
> pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
> *Subject: *optimizing number of workers
>
> Having just recei
From: Greg Hennessy
Date: Thursday, July 10, 2025 at 4:40 PM
To: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: optimizing number of workers
Having just received a shiny new dual CPU machine to use as a postgresql
server, I'm trying to do some reasonable efforts to configure it correctly
Having just received a shiny new dual CPU machine to use as a postgresql
server, I'm trying to do some reasonable efforts to configure it correctly.
The hard
ware has 128 cores, and I am running a VM with Redhat 9 and Postgresql
16.9.
In postgresql.conf I have:
max_worker_processes = 90
