On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Since Peter doesn't seem in a hurry to produce a patch for this issue,
I wrote one.  It is attached.  I'll commit this in a day or two if
nobody objects.

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

Attachment: parallel-workers-guc-doc.patch
Description: invalid/octet-stream

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

Reply via email to