On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Rushabh Lathia >> <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> But it seems a bit futile to produce the parallel plan in the first place, >>> because with max_parallel_workers=0 we can't possibly get any parallel >>> workers ever. I wonder why compute_parallel_worker() only looks at >>> max_parallel_workers_per_gather, i.e. why shouldn't it do: >>> parallel_workers = Min(parallel_workers, max_parallel_workers); >>> Perhaps this was discussed and is actually intentional, though. > >> It was intentional. See the last paragraph of >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca%2btgmoamsn6a1780vutfsarcu0lcr%3dco2yi4vluo-jqbn4y...@mail.gmail.com > > Since this has now come up twice, I suggest adding a comment there > that explains why we're intentionally ignoring max_parallel_workers.
Hey, imagine if the comments explained the logic behind the code! Good idea. How about the attached? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
add-worker-comment.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
