On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm mostly away from my computer this week -- sorry about that, but > here are a couple of quick answers to questions directed at me: > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> It's true that the leader will know the value of nworkers_launched, >>> but as the comment in LaunchParallelWorkers() says: "The caller must >>> be able to tolerate ending up with fewer workers than expected, so >>> there is no need to throw an error here if registration fails. It >>> wouldn't help much anyway, because registering the worker in no way >>> guarantees that it will start up and initialize successfully." So it >>> seems to me that a much better plan than having the leader try to >>> figure out how many workers failed to launch would be to just keep a >>> count of how many workers did in fact launch. > > (If nworkers_launched can be silently over-reported, then does > parallel_leader_participation = off have a bug? >
Yes, and it is being discussed in CF entry [1]. [1] - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/16/1341/ -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
