Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >>> I too prefer to keep it turned off in 9.6 and consider enabling it by >>> default on a

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

Robert Haas writes: > On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> I too prefer to keep it turned off in 9.6 and consider enabling it by >> default on a future release (10 is probably good). Interested users can >> carefully test

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: > >> Being cautious pays more in the long term, so seeing the number of >> bugs that showed up I'd rather vote for having it disabled by default >> in 9.6 stable, and enabled on master to

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

Michael Paquier wrote: > Being cautious pays more in the long term, so seeing the number of > bugs that showed up I'd rather vote for having it disabled by default > in 9.6 stable, and enabled on master to aim at enabling it in 10.0. I too prefer to keep it turned off in 9.6 and consider

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:52 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: > My initial reaction was +1 but now I'm leaning toward enabled by default. > > Those who would upgrade to 9.6 within a year of its release are most likely, > process and personality wise, to be those for whom

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Noah Misch writes: > >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 02:28:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> +1, but let's put an entry on the 9.6

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch writes: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 02:28:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> +1, but let's put an entry on the 9.6 open-items page to remind us to >>> make that decision at the right time. > >> It's

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

Noah Misch writes: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 02:28:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> +1, but let's put an entry on the 9.6 open-items page to remind us to >> make that decision at the right time. > It's that time. Do we restore the max_parallel_workers_per_gather=0 default, > or

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 02:28:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > max_parallel_degree currently defaults to 0. I think we should enable > > it by default for at least the beta period. Otherwise we're primarily > > going to get reports back after the

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On 22/04/16 17:36, Amit Kapila wrote: On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Gavin Flower > wrote: On 22/04/16 06:07, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Tom Lane

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On 23/04/16 00:56, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas writes: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Gavin Flower wrote: Why not 4? As most processors now have at least 4

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > This is the problem right here. > > We should be shipping for a reasonable production configuration. It is not > reasonable to assume that someone is going to be running on a Rasberry Pi 2. > Yes, we can

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On 04/22/2016 06:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas writes: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Is that because max_worker_processes is only 8 by default? Maybe

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Is that because max_worker_processes is only 8 by default? Maybe we >>> need to raise that, at least for

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Is that because max_worker_processes is only 8 by default? Maybe we >> need to raise that, at least for beta purposes? > I'm not really in favor of that. I mean, almost all of

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

På fredag 22. april 2016 kl. 14:56:33, skrev Robert Haas >: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Gavin Flower >>

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Gavin Flower >> wrote: >>> Why not 4? As most processors now have at least 4 physical cores, & surely >>> it be

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Gavin Flower wrote: > On 22/04/16 06:07, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> Robert Haas writes: >>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Tom

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Gavin Flower > wrote: >> Why not 4? As most processors now have at least 4 physical cores, & surely >> it be more likely to flush out race conditions. > Because if we did that, then

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Gavin Flower wrote: > On 22/04/16 06:07, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> >>> Robert Haas writes: On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:28 PM,

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On 22/04/16 06:07, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas writes: On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund writes: max_parallel_degree

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Andres Freund writes: max_parallel_degree currently defaults to 0. I think we

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

Robert Haas writes: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund writes: >>> max_parallel_degree currently defaults to 0. I think we should enable >>> it by default for at least the beta period. Otherwise

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: >> max_parallel_degree currently defaults to 0. I think we should enable >> it by default for at least the beta period. Otherwise we're primarily >> going to get reports back after

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

Andres Freund writes: > max_parallel_degree currently defaults to 0. I think we should enable > it by default for at least the beta period. Otherwise we're primarily > going to get reports back after the release. > Then, at the end of beta, we can decide what the default

Re: [HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

På onsdag 20. april 2016 kl. 19:46:31, skrev Andres Freund >: Hi, max_parallel_degree currently defaults to 0.  I think we should enable it by default for at least the beta period. Otherwise we're primarily going to get reports back after the

[HACKERS] max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta

Hi, max_parallel_degree currently defaults to 0. I think we should enable it by default for at least the beta period. Otherwise we're primarily going to get reports back after the release. Then, at the end of beta, we can decide what the default should be. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers