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