Horton
Menu

Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.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: 2016-06-01T10:05:44Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > I really think that a GUC named "max_parallel_workers", which in fact
> > limits the number of workers and not something else, is the way to go.
>
> To be concrete, I suggest comparing the attached documentation patch
> with Robert's.  Which one is more understandable?
>

Your explanation is clear, however the name max_parallel_workers makes it
sound like that parallelising an operation is all about workers.  Yes it
depends a lot on the number of workers allocated for parallel operation,
but that is not everything.  I think calling it max_parallelism as
suggested by Alvaro upthread suits better than max_parallel_workers.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com