Horton
Menu

Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>

View thread
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: 2016-06-02T15:33:03Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 06/02/2016 04:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

> Well, I think we could drop node, if you like.  I think parallel
> wouldn't be good to drop, though, because it sounds like we want a
> global limit on parallel workers also, and that can't be just
> max_workers.  So I think we should keep parallel in there for all of
> them, and have max_parallel_workers and
> max_parallel_workers_per_gather(_node).  The reloption and the Path
> struct field can be parallel_workers rather than parallel_degree.

So does that mean we'll rename it if you manage to implement a parameter
which controls the number of workers for the whole statement?


-- 
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)