| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 18:13:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwb+KM4WPAcr0efYJjKMV8MrpJHK8AvQ61Zimp3acOon3A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I 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.
>
> To be concrete, I suggest comparing the attached documentation patch
> with Robert's. Which one is more understandable?
>
> (I have not bothered preparing code changes to go with this, but am
> willing to do so.)
>
>
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.
Robert that it would be confusing but it cannot be worse than this...
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-31 18:13:56 | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-05-31 18:13:20 | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |