| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |
| Date: | 2016-06-03 13:39:43 |
| Message-ID: | 11330.1464961183@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I think we should just go with max_parallel_workers for a limit on
> total parallel workers within max_work_processes, and
> max_parallel_workers_per_gather for a per-Gather limit. It's slightly
> annoying that we may end up renaming the latter GUC, but not as
> annoying as spending another three weeks debating this and missing
> beta2.
+1. I'm not as convinced as you are that we'll replace the GUC later,
but in any case this is an accurate description of the current
semantics. And I'm really *not* in favor of fudging the name with
the intent of changing the GUC's semantics later --- that would fail
all sorts of compatibility expectations.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-03 13:44:30 | Re: Parallel pg_dump's error reporting doesn't work worth squat |
| Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2016-06-03 13:19:13 | Re: XTM & parallel search |