Re: select_parallel test fails with nonstandard block size - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: select_parallel test fails with nonstandard block size
Date
Msg-id 9703.1473950664@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: select_parallel test fails with nonstandard block size  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: select_parallel test fails with nonstandard block size
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Possibly we ought to change things so that the default value of
>> min_parallel_relation_size is a fixed number of bytes rather
>> than a fixed number of blocks.  Not sure though.

> The reason why this was originally reckoned in blocks is because the
> data is divided between the workers on the basis of a block number.
> In the degenerate case where blocks < workers, the extra workers will
> get no blocks at all, and thus no rows at all.

Well, sure, but at any reasonable value of min_parallel_relation_size
that won't be a factor.  The question here is whether we want the default
value to be platform-independent.  I notice that both config.sgml and
postgresql.conf.sample claim that the default value is 8MB, which this
discussion reveals to be a lie.  If you want to keep the default expressed
as "1024" and not "(8 * 1024 * 1024) / BLCKSZ", we need to change the
documentation.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavan Deolasee
Date:
Subject: Re: Printing bitmap objects in the debugger
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Block level parallel vacuum WIP