Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What I'm tempted to do is trying to document that, as a point of
>> policy, parallel query in 9.6 uses up to (workers + 1) times the
>> resources that a single session might use. That includes not only CPU
>> but also things like work_mem and temp file space. This obviously
>> isn't ideal, but it's what could be done by the ship date.
> Where would that be documented, though? Would it need to be noted in
> the case of each such GUC?
Why can't we just note this in the number-of-workers GUCs? It's not like
there even *is* a GUC for many of our per-process resource consumption
behaviors.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
