Horton
Menu

Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?

David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>

View thread
From: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, 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: 2016-06-02T14:10:40Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > 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.
>
> WFM.
>

​+1​