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 http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
