| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(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: | 2016-05-31 17:03:21 |
| Message-ID: | 8716.1464714201@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> I realize there's a lot of water under the bridge here, but I think
> we're going to get 1000 questions on -general of the type: "I asked for
> 8 parallel workers, why did I only get 7?". I believe we will regret
> this change.
> So, one vote from me to revert.
Well, that gets back to the question of whether average users will
understand the "degree" terminology. For the record, while I do not
like the current behavior either, this was not the solution I favored.
I thought we should rename the GUC and keep it as meaning the number
of additional worker processes.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh berkus | 2016-05-31 17:10:29 | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-31 16:59:35 | Re: Re: PATCH: Split stats file per database WAS: autovacuum stress-testing our system |