Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(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: 2016-06-01 21:29:51
Message-ID: 7570.1464816591@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've largely given up hope of coming up with an alternative that can
> attract more than one vote and that is also at least mildly accurate,
> but one idea is max_parallel_workers_per_gather_node. That will be
> totally clear.

Given the reference to Gather nodes, couldn't you drop the word
"parallel"? "node" might not be necessary either.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh berkus 2016-06-01 21:30:40 Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2016-06-01 21:23:24 Re: PostmasterPid not marked with PGDLLIMPORT