Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
From: Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: 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: 2016-06-01T21:30:40Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 06/01/2016 02:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > If you lined up ten people in a room all of whom were competent > database professionals and none of whom knew anything about PostgreSQL > and asked them to guess what a setting called work_mem does and what a > setting called max_parallel_degree does, I will wager you $5 that > they'd do better on the second one. Likewise, I bet the guesses for > max_parallel_degree would be closer to the mark than the guesses for > maintenance_work_mem or replacement_sort_tuples or commit_siblings or > bgwriter_lru_multiplier. Incidentally, the reason I didn't jump into this thread until the patches showed up is that I don't think it actually matters what the parameters are named. They're going to require documentation regardless, parallism just isn't something people grok instinctively. I care about how the parameters *work*, and whether that's consistent across our various resource management settings. -- -- Josh Berkus Red Hat OSAS (any opinions are my own)