On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 3:25 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: >> It might make sense to have the "minimum memory per participant" value >> come from a GUC, rather than be hard coded (it's currently hard-coded >> to 32MB). > >> What do you think of that idea? > > A third option here is to specifically recognize that > compute_parallel_worker() returned a value based on the table storage > param max_workers, and for that reason alone no "insufficient memory > per participant" decrementing/vetoing should take place. That is, when > the max_workers param is set, perhaps it should be completely > impossible for CREATE INDEX to ignore it for any reason other than an > inability to launch parallel workers (though that could be due to the > max_parallel_workers GUC's setting). > > You could argue that we should do this anyway, I suppose.
Yes, I think this sounds like a good idea. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
