Re: Use MAX_PARALLEL_WORKER_LIMIT consistently in guc_tables.c

Hi,

Zhang Mingli
www.hashdata.xyz
On Oct 9, 2024 at 20:35 +0800, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm(at)gmail(dot)com>, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Whilst doing some digging in parallel code, I noticed that
> max_parallel_maintenance_workers is registered as guc with a manual
> value of 1024, while max_parallel_workers_per_gather uses
> MAX_PARALLEL_WORKER_LIMIT (also 1024). After some archeology, the
> discrepancy seems to have existed ever since
> max_parallel_maintenance_workers was originally introduced, as the
> patch development that introduced the GUC that eventually got
> committed predates the use of MAX_PARALLEL_WORKER_LIMIT in guc.c (now
> guc_tables.c), and the change to the definition of sibling GUCs of
> max_parallel_workers and max_parallel_workers_per_gather wasn't
> noticed during that development.
>
> PFA a trivial one-line patch that makes that a bit more consistent.
LGTM.