| From: | Christopher Kline <kline(dot)christopher(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #18343: Incorrect description in postgresql.conf for max_parallel_workers_per_gather |
| Date: | 2024-02-15 20:29:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAArmHzRG4vi0rp8QetTWSeT0ZJj58qzn0jmvKXhZs_Y7c96bWw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Agreed.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 2:42 PM David G. Johnston <
david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:31 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> Christopher Kline <kline(dot)christopher(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> > Thank you all for the clarification. I like David Johnston's suggestion
>> of
>> > # capped at max_parallel_workers
>> > That clearly defines the constraint.
>>
>> I was thinking perhaps "# limited by max_parallel_workers"
>> or something like that. "Capped at" isn't phraseology we
>> use elsewhere.
>>
>>
> "limited by" is indeed better IMO as well.
>
> David J.
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-02-15 21:30:39 | Re: BUG #18343: Incorrect description in postgresql.conf for max_parallel_workers_per_gather |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-02-15 19:41:59 | Re: BUG #18343: Incorrect description in postgresql.conf for max_parallel_workers_per_gather |