On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:43:47 -0700 Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Constantin S. Pan <kva...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > The backend just waits for the results from the workers and merges > > them (in case wnum > 0). So the 1-worker configuration should never > > be used, because it is as sequential as the 0-worker, but adds data > > transfer. > > This is why I wanted an easy way of atomically guaranteeing some > number of workers (typically 2), or not using parallelism at all. I > think the parallel worker API should offer a simple way to do that in > cases like this, where having only 1 worker is never going to win. Well, we can check the number of workers actually launched and revert back to single backend way when there is less than 2 workers. Let me code that in. Regards, Constantin S. Pan Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
