Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYKkQigU+LeqVREnUvvd5eDx0ju8-i_QexbX_+BV0p0Fw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> I still think >> max_parallel_workers is confusingly similar to max_worker_processes, >> but nothing's going to make everyone completely happy here. > > Well, what was suggested upthread was to change all of these to follow > the pattern max_foo_workers or max_foo_worker_processes, where foo would > (hopefully) clarify the scope in which the limitation applies. Well, I don't like max_node_parallel_degree much. We don't call it max_node_work_mem. And node is not exactly a term that's going to be more familiar to the average PostgreSQL user than parallel degree is to (apparently) the average PostgreSQL developer. I think at some point adding noise words hurts more than it helps, and you've just got to ask people to RTFM if they really want to understand. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: