Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: 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: 2016-04-26 15:49:00
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYKkQigU+LeqVREnUvvd5eDx0ju8-i_QexbX_+BV0p0Fw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I still think
>> max_parallel_workers is confusingly similar to max_worker_processes,
>> but nothing's going to make everyone completely happy here.
>
> Well, what was suggested upthread was to change all of these to follow
> the pattern max_foo_workers or max_foo_worker_processes, where foo would
> (hopefully) clarify the scope in which the limitation applies.

Well, I don't like max_node_parallel_degree much. We don't call it
max_node_work_mem. And node is not exactly a term that's going to be
more familiar to the average PostgreSQL user than parallel degree is
to (apparently) the average PostgreSQL developer. I think at some
point adding noise words hurts more than it helps, and you've just got
to ask people to RTFM if they really want to understand.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dean Rasheed 2016-04-26 15:52:08 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-04-26 15:44:26 Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?