| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: | 2016-04-25 20:32:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZRAuhGEZeeurKKud5z-zAi-o_warFx7J4Gh-i=DdBbrmw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think we should rename all of these to something based on the concept of
> "number of worker processes", and adjust the code if necessary to match.
> I think the "degree" terminology is fundamentally tainted by the question
> of whether or not it counts the leader, and that we will have bugs (or
> indeed may have them today) caused by getting that wrong.
FWIW, my concern was always limited to that. I don't actually mind if
we use the "degree" terminology, as long as our usage is consistent
with that of other major systems. Since the GUC's behavior isn't going
to change now, the terminology should change. I'm fine with that. I'm
not particularly concerned with the specifics of some new terminology,
as long as it's consistent with the idea of auxiliary worker processes
that cooperate with a leader process.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-04-25 20:45:14 | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-04-25 20:29:36 | Re: [BUGS] Breakage with VACUUM ANALYSE + partitions |