Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
От | Joshua D. Drake |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 574DCCB4.8060907@commandprompt.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/31/2016 10:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: >> On 05/31/2016 10:16 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >>> But the distinction between parallel workers and backends that can >>> participate in parallel query does need to be user-visible. Worker >>> processes are a commodity (i.e. the user must consider >>> max_worker_processes). > >> It's still WAY simpler to understand "max_parallel is the number of >> parallel workers I requested". > >> Any system where you set it to 2 and get only 1 worker on an idle system >> is going to cause endless queries on the mailing lists. > > 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. > I agree with Tom here. If we are being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic we are just causing frustration. The term max_parallel_workers is simple, easy to understand and accurate enough. Sincerely, JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: