On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> writes: >> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> 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.
+1. -- 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
