On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Josh berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> On 06/02/2016 08:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Josh berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: > >> On 06/02/2016 04:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > >>> Well, I think we could drop node, if you like. I think parallel > >>> wouldn't be good to drop, though, because it sounds like we want a > >>> global limit on parallel workers also, and that can't be just > >>> max_workers. So I think we should keep parallel in there for all of > >>> them, and have max_parallel_workers and > >>> max_parallel_workers_per_gather(_node). The reloption and the Path > >>> struct field can be parallel_workers rather than parallel_degree. > > > >> So does that mean we'll rename it if you manage to implement a parameter > >> which controls the number of workers for the whole statement? > > > > That would fit in as something like max_parallel_workers_per_statement. > > ETOOMANYKNOBS > > I'm trying to think of some way we can reasonably automate this for > users ... > Are you referring to right now or if we move the goal posts to making this a per-statement reservation? Oh, and how does one measure 0.718... of a knob? David J.
