On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I guess that the workMem scaling threshold thing could be >> min_parallel_index_scan_size, rather than min_parallel_relation_size >> (which we now call min_parallel_table_scan_size)? > > No, it should be based on min_parallel_table_scan_size, because that > is the size of the parallel heap scan that will be done as input to > the sort.
I'm talking about the extra thing we do to prevent parallelism from being used when per-worker workMem is excessively low. That has much more to do with projected index size than current heap size. I agree with everything else you've said, I think. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
