Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > I get where you're coming from, but I think Haas's query plan output is
> > going to show us the confusion we're going to get. So we need to either
> > change the parameter, the explain output, or brace ourselves for endless
> > repeated questions.
>
> I get where you're coming from, too -- I think our positions are very
> close.
>
> The only reason I favor defining parallel_degree = 1, rather than
> doing what Tom proposes to do with that patch, is that we might as
> well use the prevailing terminology used by SQL Server and Oracle (as
> long as we match those semantics). Also, I think that number of cores
> used is a more important consideration for users than the number of
> workers used.
>
> Users will definitely be confused about workers used vs. cores used,
> but I don't think that any proposal fixes that.
>
>
Ideally each worker gets its own core - though obviously physical
limitations apply. If that's not the case then, yes, at least one user is
confused...

David J.