Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>,
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-05-31T18:46:47Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > On 05/31/2016 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: >>> One more consistency question: what's the effect of running out of >>> max_parallel_workers? >> ITYM max_worker_processes (ie, the cluster-wide pool size)? > Yes. Sorry for contributing to the confusion. Too many > similar-sounding parameter names. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing while preparing my docs patch. At the risk of opening another can of worms, what about renaming max_worker_processes as well? It would be a good thing if that had "cluster" in it somewhere, or something that indicates it's a system-wide value not a per-session value. "max_workers_per_cluster" would answer, though I'm not in love with it particularly. regards, tom lane