On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 7:04 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> OK, I pushed this after re-reviewing it and fixing a number of >> oversights. There remains only the task of adding max_parallel_degree >> as a system-wide limit (as opposed to max_parallel_degree now >> max_parallel_workers_per_gather which is a per-Gather limit), which >> I'm going to argue should be a new open item and not necessarily one >> that I have to own myself. I would like to take care of it, but I >> will not put it ahead of fixing actual defects and I will not promise >> to have it done in time for 9.6. > > I am in favor of having something similar to > max_parallel_workers_per_gather for utility statements like CREATE > INDEX. That will need a cost model, at least where the DBA isn't > explicit about the number of workers to use.
We may well need that, but I think it should be discussed in conjunction with the patches that add parallelism for those utility statements, rather than discussing it on a thread for a 9.6 open item. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
