Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

Cc: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2016-06-03T13:39:43Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I think we should just go with max_parallel_workers for a limit on
> total parallel workers within max_work_processes, and
> max_parallel_workers_per_gather for a per-Gather limit.  It's slightly
> annoying that we may end up renaming the latter GUC, but not as
> annoying as spending another three weeks debating this and missing
> beta2.

+1.  I'm not as convinced as you are that we'll replace the GUC later,
but in any case this is an accurate description of the current
semantics.  And I'm really *not* in favor of fudging the name with
the intent of changing the GUC's semantics later --- that would fail
all sorts of compatibility expectations.

			regards, tom lane