| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 18:09:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZS_d0L3FmWghdK2a26jDzLGEq6bOUHxNBhkjpyZeu30Tw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> I get where you're coming from, but I think Haas's query plan output is
> going to show us the confusion we're going to get. So we need to either
> change the parameter, the explain output, or brace ourselves for endless
> repeated questions.
I get where you're coming from, too -- I think our positions are very close.
The only reason I favor defining parallel_degree = 1, rather than
doing what Tom proposes to do with that patch, is that we might as
well use the prevailing terminology used by SQL Server and Oracle (as
long as we match those semantics). Also, I think that number of cores
used is a more important consideration for users than the number of
workers used.
Users will definitely be confused about workers used vs. cores used,
but I don't think that any proposal fixes that.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-31 18:10:40 | Re: Logic behind parallel default? WAS: Rename max_parallel_degree? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-31 18:08:57 | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |