Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: 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: 2016-05-31T17:41:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 05/31/2016 10:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> On 05/31/2016 10:16 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>> But the distinction between parallel workers and backends that can
>>> participate in parallel query does need to be user-visible. Worker
>>> processes are a commodity (i.e. the user must consider
>>> max_worker_processes).
>
>> It's still WAY simpler to understand "max_parallel is the number of
>> parallel workers I requested".
>
>> Any system where you set it to 2 and get only 1 worker on an idle system
>> is going to cause endless queries on the mailing lists.
>
> I really think that a GUC named "max_parallel_workers", which in fact
> limits the number of workers and not something else, is the way to go.
>
I agree with Tom here. If we are being pedantic for the sake of being
pedantic we are just causing frustration. The term max_parallel_workers
is simple, easy to understand and accurate enough.
Sincerely,
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.