Re: Small fix to postgresql.conf.sample's comment on max_parallel_workers

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Small fix to postgresql.conf.sample's comment on max_parallel_workers
Date: 2017-03-07 02:21:20
Message-ID: CAA4eK1JbXWy72=ZpzkOiaW+UhZs5nY4Aa7u4Lr=HHkWOOcj9jA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:39 AM, David Rowley
<david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> While scanning over postgresql.conf I happened to notice something
> that didn't ring quite true about max_parallel_workers. The comment
> confuses worker_processes with parallel workers.
>

+1. How about changing the description of
max_parallel_workers_per_gather to "taken from max_worker_processes,
limited by max_parallel_workers"?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Karlsson 2017-03-07 02:21:42 Re: adding an immutable variant of to_date
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-03-07 02:11:53 Re: Enabling replication connections by default in pg_hba.conf