Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Since this has now come up twice, I suggest adding a comment there >> that explains why we're intentionally ignoring max_parallel_workers.
> Good idea. How about the attached? WFM ... but seems like there should be some flavor of this statement in the user-facing docs too (ie, "max_parallel_workers_per_gather > max_parallel_workers is a bad idea unless you're trying to test what happens when a plan can't get all the workers it planned for"). The existing text makes some vague allusions suggesting that the two GUCs might be interrelated, but I think it could be improved. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers