| From: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2016-05-02 19:18:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20160502191828.GC16722@msg.df7cb.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Re: Robert Haas 2016-05-02 <CA+TgmobRmK649eDYvF6dgnQJNJVJvZffDz674wD+GWqCcb=YjQ(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> max_parallel_degree -> max_parallel_workers
> parallel_degree -> parallel_workers
>
> I would prefer to keep it as "degree". It's a reasonable term of art,
> and it also improves grep-ability. But I'm willing to go do the above
> renaming if there is a clear consensus behind it. Alternatively, I'm
> willing to make it 1-based rather than 0-based if there is a clear
> consensus on that option, though unsurprisingly I prefer it the way it
> is now. Do we have such a consensus?
Fwiw the one thing I remember from when I read first about the feature
was a big "wtf if I set that to 1, I'll actually get 2 processes?". So
+1 on doing *something* about it.
Christoph
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-05-02 19:18:47 | Re: Timeline following for logical slots |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-05-02 19:18:22 | Re: pg9.6 segfault using simple query (related to use fk for join estimates) |