Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM3SWZS6SWHZH_9g8cTkXj_H_XWpCo_qzLh7rnek2CJS9FEYkg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> I am in favor of having something similar to >> max_parallel_workers_per_gather for utility statements like CREATE >> INDEX. That will need a cost model, at least where the DBA isn't >> explicit about the number of workers to use. > > We may well need that, but I think it should be discussed in > conjunction with the patches that add parallelism for those utility > statements, rather than discussing it on a thread for a 9.6 open item. Of course. I don't think it needs to be scoped to utility statements. It's just clear that it's not appropriate to use max_parallel_workers_per_gather within utility statements, even though something like that will be needed. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: