| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |
| Date: | 2016-06-01 14:10:45 |
| Message-ID: | 17944.1464790245@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 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.
I don't think that's a good direction at all. This entire discussion is
caused by the fact that it's not very clear what "max_parallel_degree"
measures. Fixing that problem by renaming the variable to something that
doesn't even pretend to tell you what it's counting is not an improvement.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2016-06-01 14:17:04 | Re: Floating point comparison inconsistencies of the geometric types |
| Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2016-06-01 13:44:54 | Re: Question and suggestion about application binary compatibility policy |