Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-05-02T19:22:52Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> wrote: > Re: Robert Haas 2016-05-02 <CA+TgmobRmK649eDYvF6dgnQJNJVJvZffDz674wD+GWqCcb=YjQ@mail.gmail.com> >> max_parallel_degree -> max_parallel_workers >> parallel_degree -> parallel_workers >> >> I would prefer to keep it as "degree". It's a reasonable term of art, >> and it also improves grep-ability. But I'm willing to go do the above >> renaming if there is a clear consensus behind it. Alternatively, I'm >> willing to make it 1-based rather than 0-based if there is a clear >> consensus on that option, though unsurprisingly I prefer it the way it >> is now. Do we have such a consensus? > > Fwiw the one thing I remember from when I read first about the feature > was a big "wtf if I set that to 1, I'll actually get 2 processes?". So > +1 on doing *something* about it. To be clear, you'll get 1 new process in addition to the 1 that is already running. But vote noted. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company