From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |
Date: | 2016-04-25 18:58:04 |
Message-ID: | 20160425185804.GA415608@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> FWIW, I agree with Bruce that using "degree" here is a poor choice.
> >> It's an unnecessary dependence on technical terminology that many people
> >> will not be familiar with.
>
> > FWIW, SQL Server calls it "degree of parallelism" as well (
> > https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188611(v=sql.105).aspx) And
> > their configuration option is "max degree of parallelism":
> > https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms181007(v=sql.105).aspx.
>
> Yes, but both they and Oracle appear to consider "degree" to mean the
> total number of processors used, not the number of secondary jobs in
> addition to the main one. The only thing worse than employing obscure
> technical terminology is employing it incorrectly:
What about calling it something even simpler, such as "max_parallelism"?
This avoids such cargo cult, and there's no implication that it's
per-query.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Guo, Yun | 2016-04-25 19:08:32 | how to measure pglogical replication lag |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2016-04-25 18:53:26 | Re: [BUGS] Breakage with VACUUM ANALYSE + partitions |