Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Rushabh Lathia > <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: >> But it seems a bit futile to produce the parallel plan in the first place, >> because with max_parallel_workers=0 we can't possibly get any parallel >> workers ever. I wonder why compute_parallel_worker() only looks at >> max_parallel_workers_per_gather, i.e. why shouldn't it do: >> parallel_workers = Min(parallel_workers, max_parallel_workers); >> Perhaps this was discussed and is actually intentional, though.
> It was intentional. See the last paragraph of > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca%2btgmoamsn6a1780vutfsarcu0lcr%3dco2yi4vluo-jqbn4y...@mail.gmail.com Since this has now come up twice, I suggest adding a comment there that explains why we're intentionally ignoring max_parallel_workers. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers