Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-04-26T15:49:00Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> I still think
>> max_parallel_workers is confusingly similar to max_worker_processes,
>> but nothing's going to make everyone completely happy here.
>
> Well, what was suggested upthread was to change all of these to follow
> the pattern max_foo_workers or max_foo_worker_processes, where foo would
> (hopefully) clarify the scope in which the limitation applies.

Well, I don't like max_node_parallel_degree much.  We don't call it
max_node_work_mem.  And node is not exactly a term that's going to be
more familiar to the average PostgreSQL user than parallel degree is
to (apparently) the average PostgreSQL developer.  I think at some
point adding noise words hurts more than it helps, and you've just got
to ask people to RTFM if they really want to understand.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company