| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(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: | 2016-05-31 18:17:00 |
| Message-ID: | 21918.1464718620@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I really think that a GUC named "max_parallel_workers", which in fact
>>> limits the number of workers and not something else, is the way to go.
> If going this route I'd still rather add the word "assisting"
> or "additional" directly into the guc name so the need to read the docs to
> determine inclusive or exclusive of the leader is alleviated.
Dunno, "max_assisting_parallel_workers" seems awfully wordy and not
remarkably clearer.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-05-31 18:17:32 | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-31 18:13:56 | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |