Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>,
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>,
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-05-31T20:04:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Robert Haas wrote: >> So I think in the long run we should have three limits: >> >> 1. Cluster-wide limit on number of worker processes for all purposes >> (currently, max_worker_processes). >> >> 2. Cluster-wide limit on number of worker processes for parallelism >> (don't have this yet). >> >> 3. Per-operation limit on number of worker processes for parallelism >> (currently, max_parallel_degree). >> >> Whatever we rename, there needs to be enough semantic space between #1 >> and #3 to allow for the possibility - I think the very likely >> possibility - that we will eventually also want #2. > max_background_workers sounds fine to me for #1, and I propose to add #2 > in 9.6 rather than wait. +1 to both points. > max_total_parallel_query_workers ? The name should be closely related to what we use for #3. I could go for max_total_parallel_workers for #2 and max_parallel_workers for #3. Or maybe max_parallel_workers_total? regards, tom lane