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: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.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: 2016-06-03T12:30:13Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> > I was assuming that we would have *both* per-operation and per-statement
> > limits.  I can see reasons for having both, I can see why power users
> > would want both, but it's going to be overwhelming to casual users.
>
> I don't think so.  I think the fact that this is per-gather-node
> rather than per-statement right now is basically a defect.  Once we
> have a per-statement limit, I see no value in having the
> per-gather-node setting.  So, yes, at that point, I would push to
> rename the GUC.
>
>
​How big is the hazard of future-naming this and documenting the present
limitation?  Is the casual user reading explains even going to be aware of
that particular implementation detail?

David J.