On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>> I too prefer to keep it turned off in 9.6 and consider enabling it by
>>> default on a future release (10 is probably good). Interested users can
>>> carefull
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> I too prefer to keep it turned off in 9.6 and consider enabling it by
>> default on a future release (10 is probably good). Interested users can
>> carefully test the feature without endangering other unsuspecting
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> Being cautious pays more in the long term, so seeing the number of
>> bugs that showed up I'd rather vote for having it disabled by default
>> in 9.6 stable, and enabled on master to aim at enabling it in 10.0.
>
Michael Paquier wrote:
> Being cautious pays more in the long term, so seeing the number of
> bugs that showed up I'd rather vote for having it disabled by default
> in 9.6 stable, and enabled on master to aim at enabling it in 10.0.
I too prefer to keep it turned off in 9.6 and consider enabling
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:52 PM, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> My initial reaction was +1 but now I'm leaning toward enabled by default.
>
> Those who would upgrade to 9.6 within a year of its release are most likely,
> process and personality wise, to be those for whom the risks and rewards of
> new
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Noah Misch writes:
> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 02:28:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> +1, but let's put an entry on the 9.6 open-items page to remind us to
> >>> make that decision at the
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 02:28:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> +1, but let's put an entry on the 9.6 open-items page to remind us to
>>> make that decision at the right time.
>
>> It's that time. Do we restore the max_parall
Noah Misch writes:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 02:28:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> +1, but let's put an entry on the 9.6 open-items page to remind us to
>> make that decision at the right time.
> It's that time. Do we restore the max_parallel_workers_per_gather=0 default,
> or is enabling this by
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 02:28:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > max_parallel_degree currently defaults to 0. I think we should enable
> > it by default for at least the beta period. Otherwise we're primarily
> > going to get reports back after the release.
>
> > Then, at th
On 22/04/16 17:36, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Gavin Flower
mailto:gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz>>
wrote:
On 22/04/16 06:07, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Tom Lane mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
Robert Haas mailto:robe
On 23/04/16 00:56, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Gavin Flower
wrote:
Why not 4? As most processors now have at least 4 physical cores, & surely
it be more likely to flush out race conditions.
Becaus
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Joshua D. Drake
wrote:
> This is the problem right here.
>
> We should be shipping for a reasonable production configuration. It is not
> reasonable to assume that someone is going to be running on a Rasberry Pi 2.
> Yes, we can effectively run on that platform t
On 04/22/2016 06:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Is that because max_worker_processes is only 8 by default? Maybe we
need to raise that, at least for beta purposes?
I'm not re
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Is that because max_worker_processes is only 8 by default? Maybe we
>>> need to raise that, at least for beta purposes?
>
>> I'm not really in favor of that. I mean, a
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is that because max_worker_processes is only 8 by default? Maybe we
>> need to raise that, at least for beta purposes?
> I'm not really in favor of that. I mean, almost all of our default
> settings are optimized for run
På fredag 22. april 2016 kl. 14:56:33, skrev Robert Haas mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com>>:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Gavin Flower
>> wrote:
>>> Why not 4? As most processors now have at least 4 physical cores, &
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Gavin Flower
>> wrote:
>>> Why not 4? As most processors now have at least 4 physical cores, & surely
>>> it be more likely to flush out race conditions.
>
>> Because if we did that, then
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Gavin Flower wrote:
> On 22/04/16 06:07, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Haas writes:
>>>
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>
>> max_parallel_de
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Gavin Flower
> wrote:
>> Why not 4? As most processors now have at least 4 physical cores, & surely
>> it be more likely to flush out race conditions.
> Because if we did that, then it's extremely likely that people would
> end up writing q
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Gavin Flower
wrote:
> On 22/04/16 06:07, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>> Robert Haas writes:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Andres Freund writes:
>>
>> max_paralle
On 22/04/16 06:07, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund writes:
max_parallel_degree currently defaults to 0. I think we should enable
it by default for at least the beta peri
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Andres Freund writes:
max_parallel_degree currently defaults to 0. I think we should enable
it by default for at least the beta period. Otherwise we're prima
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund writes:
>>> max_parallel_degree currently defaults to 0. I think we should enable
>>> it by default for at least the beta period. Otherwise we're primarily
>>> going to get reports back after the release.
>
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>> max_parallel_degree currently defaults to 0. I think we should enable
>> it by default for at least the beta period. Otherwise we're primarily
>> going to get reports back after the release.
>
>> Then, at the end of beta
Andres Freund writes:
> max_parallel_degree currently defaults to 0. I think we should enable
> it by default for at least the beta period. Otherwise we're primarily
> going to get reports back after the release.
> Then, at the end of beta, we can decide what the default should be.
+1, but let'
På onsdag 20. april 2016 kl. 19:46:31, skrev Andres Freund mailto:and...@anarazel.de>>:
Hi,
max_parallel_degree currently defaults to 0. I think we should enable
it by default for at least the beta period. Otherwise we're primarily
going to get reports back after the release.
Then, at the en
Hi,
max_parallel_degree currently defaults to 0. I think we should enable
it by default for at least the beta period. Otherwise we're primarily
going to get reports back after the release.
Then, at the end of beta, we can decide what the default should be.
- Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
27 matches
Mail list logo
