Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 09/08/16 12:16, Craig Ringer wrote:

> >Right. I think that's probably the direction we should be going
> >eventually. Personally I don't think such a change should block the
> >logical replication work from proceeding with bgworkers, though.
> Yeah that's why I added local max GUC that just handles the logical worker
> limit within the max_worker_processes. I didn't want to also write generic
> framework for managing the max workers using tags or something as part of
> this, it's big enough as it is and we can always move the limit to the more
> generic place once we have it.

Parallel query does exactly that: the workers are allocated from the
bgworkers array, and if you want more, it's on you to increase that
limit (it doesn't even have the GUC for a maximum).  As far as logical
replication and parallel query are concerned, that's fine.  We can
improve this later, if it proves to be a problem.

I think there are far more pressing matters to review.

Álvaro Herrera      
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to