On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Julien Rouhaud <julien.rouh...@dalibo.com> wrote: > On 11/06/2016 23:37, Julien Rouhaud wrote: >> On 09/06/2016 16:04, Robert Haas 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. >>> >> >> PFA a patch to fix this open item. I used the GUC name provided in the >> 9.6 open item page (max_parallel_workers), with a default value of 4. >> Value 0 is another way to disable parallel query. >> > > Sorry I just realized I made a stupid mistake, I didn't check in all > slots to get the number of active parallel workers. Fixed in attached v2.
I think instead of adding a "bool parallel" argument to RegisterDynamicBackgroundWorker, we should just define a new constant for bgw_flags, say BGW_IS_PARALLEL_WORKER. -- 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
