On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Amit Kapila <amit.kap...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> min_parallel_relation_size, or min_parallelizable_relation_size, or > >> something like that? > > > You are right that such a variable will make it simpler to write tests for > > parallel query. I have implemented such a guc and choose to keep the name > > as min_parallel_relation_size. > > Pushed with minor adjustments.
Thanks. > > One thing to note is that in function > > create_plain_partial_paths(), curently it is using PG_INT32_MAX/3 for > > parallel_threshold to check for overflow, I have changed it to INT_MAX/3 so > > as to be consistent with guc.c. I am not sure if it is advisable to use > > PG_INT32_MAX in guc.c as other similar parameters use INT_MAX. > > I agree that using INT_MAX is more consistent with the code elsewhere in > guc.c, and more correct given that we declare the variable in question > as int not int32. But you need to include <limits.h> to use INT_MAX ... > I wonder why it has not given me any compilation error/warning. I have tried it on both Windows and CentOS, before sending the patch. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com