On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > >> > Yeah, if we come up with a plan for X workers and end up not being able > >> > to spawn that many then I could see that being worth a warning or notice > >> > or something. Not sure what EXPLAIN has to do anything with it.. > >> > >> That seems mighty odd to me. If there are 8 background worker > >> processes available, and you allow each session to use at most 4, then > >> when there are >2 sessions trying to do parallelism at the same time, > >> they might not all get their workers. Emitting a notice for that > >> seems like it would be awfully chatty. > > > > Yeah, agreed, it could get quite noisy. Did you have another thought > > for how to address the concern raised? Specifically, that you might not > > get as many workers as you thought you would? > > I'm not sure why that's a condition in need of special reporting. >
So what should happen if no workers are available? I don't think we can change the plan to a non-parallel at that stage. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
