On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> BTW, decent regression tests could be written without the need to create
>>> enormous tables if the minimum rel size in create_plain_partial_paths()
>>> could be configured to something less than 1000 blocks. I think it's
>>> fairly crazy that that arbitrary constant is hard-wired anyway. Should
>>> we make it a GUC?
>> That was proposed before, and I didn't do it mostly because I couldn't
>> think of a name for it that didn't sound unbelievably corny.
> min_parallel_relation_size, or min_parallelizable_relation_size, or
> something like that?
>> the whole way that algorithm works is kind of a hack and probably
>> needs to be overhauled entirely in some future release. I'm worried
>> about having the words "backward compatibility" thrown in my face when
>> it's time to improve this logic. But aside from those two issues I'm
>> OK with exposing a knob.
> I agree it's a hack, and I don't want to expose anything about the
> number-of-workers scaling behavior, for precisely that reason. But a
> threshold on the size of a table to consider parallel scans for at all
> doesn't seem unreasonable.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: