> On Jan 10, 2018, at 21:45, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The documentation for max_parallel_workers_maintenance cribs from the
> documentation for max_parallel_workers_per_gather in saying that we'll
> use fewer workers than expected "which may be inefficient".
Can we actually call it max_parallel_maintenance_workers instead?
I mean we don't have work_mem_maintenance.