On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Julien Rouhaud
<julien.rouh...@dalibo.com> wrote:
> On 11/06/2016 23:37, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> On 09/06/2016 16:04, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> OK, I pushed this after re-reviewing it and fixing a number of
>>> oversights.  There remains only the task of adding max_parallel_degree
>>> as a system-wide limit (as opposed to max_parallel_degree now
>>> max_parallel_workers_per_gather which is a per-Gather limit), which
>>> I'm going to argue should be a new open item and not necessarily one
>>> that I have to own myself.  I would like to take care of it, but I
>>> will not put it ahead of fixing actual defects and I will not promise
>>> to have it done in time for 9.6.
>> PFA a patch to fix this open item.  I used the GUC name provided in the
>> 9.6 open item page (max_parallel_workers), with a default value of 4.
>> Value 0 is another way to disable parallel query.
> Sorry I just realized I made a stupid mistake, I didn't check in all
> slots to get the number of active parallel workers. Fixed in attached v2.

I think instead of adding a "bool parallel" argument to
RegisterDynamicBackgroundWorker, we should just define a new constant
for bgw_flags, say BGW_IS_PARALLEL_WORKER.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to