From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | 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: | 2016-04-26 15:49:00 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYKkQigU+LeqVREnUvvd5eDx0ju8-i_QexbX_+BV0p0Fw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I still think
>> max_parallel_workers is confusingly similar to max_worker_processes,
>> but nothing's going to make everyone completely happy here.
>
> Well, what was suggested upthread was to change all of these to follow
> the pattern max_foo_workers or max_foo_worker_processes, where foo would
> (hopefully) clarify the scope in which the limitation applies.
Well, I don't like max_node_parallel_degree much. We don't call it
max_node_work_mem. And node is not exactly a term that's going to be
more familiar to the average PostgreSQL user than parallel degree is
to (apparently) the average PostgreSQL developer. I think at some
point adding noise words hurts more than it helps, and you've just got
to ask people to RTFM if they really want to understand.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2016-04-26 15:52:08 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-26 15:44:26 | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |