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: 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: 2016-05-31T17:03:21Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> I realize there's a lot of water under the bridge here, but I think
> we're going to get 1000 questions on -general of the type:  "I asked for
> 8 parallel workers, why did I only get 7?".  I believe we will regret
> this change.
> So, one vote from me to revert.

Well, that gets back to the question of whether average users will
understand the "degree" terminology.  For the record, while I do not
like the current behavior either, this was not the solution I favored.
I thought we should rename the GUC and keep it as meaning the number
of additional worker processes.

			regards, tom lane