|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>|
|Cc:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> FWIW, I agree with Bruce that using "degree" here is a poor choice.
>> It's an unnecessary dependence on technical terminology that many people
>> will not be familiar with.
> FWIW, SQL Server calls it "degree of parallelism" as well (
> https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188611(v=sql.105).aspx). And
> their configuration option is "max degree of parallelism":
Yes, but both they and Oracle appear to consider "degree" to mean the
total number of processors used, not the number of secondary jobs in
addition to the main one. The only thing worse than employing obscure
technical terminology is employing it incorrectly: that way, you get to
confuse both the users who know what it means and those who don't.
The fact that we couldn't get this right seems to me to be sufficient
evidence that we should stay away from the term "degree".
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Andrew Dunstan||2016-04-24 18:44:22||Re: Transactional enum additions - was Re: Alter or rename enum value|
|Previous Message||Magnus Hagander||2016-04-24 18:34:57||Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?|