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: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.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: 2016-06-02T11:58:16Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> I've largely given up hope of coming up with an alternative that can
>> attract more than one vote and that is also at least mildly accurate,
>> but one idea is max_parallel_workers_per_gather_node.  That will be
>> totally clear.
>
> Given the reference to Gather nodes, couldn't you drop the word
> "parallel"?  "node" might not be necessary either.

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.

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