| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(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: | 2016-06-01 10:05:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1J+mSjzoWLXe=azqrLDN9KQqPcf7T5=SKbTFWMZHBS5kA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > I really think that a GUC named "max_parallel_workers", which in fact
> > limits the number of workers and not something else, is the way to go.
>
> To be concrete, I suggest comparing the attached documentation patch
> with Robert's. Which one is more understandable?
>
Your explanation is clear, however the name max_parallel_workers makes it
sound like that parallelising an operation is all about workers. Yes it
depends a lot on the number of workers allocated for parallel operation,
but that is not everything. I think calling it max_parallelism as
suggested by Alvaro upthread suits better than max_parallel_workers.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2016-06-01 11:25:49 | Re: COMMENT ON, psql and access methods |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2016-06-01 09:22:18 | Re: [HACKERS] Change in order of criteria - reg |