Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
| От | Amit Kapila |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA4eK1J+mSjzoWLXe=azqrLDN9KQqPcf7T5=SKbTFWMZHBS5kA@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, May 31, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > 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.
>
> To be concrete, I suggest comparing the attached documentation patch
> with Robert's. Which one is more understandable?
>
>
> I wrote:
> > 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.
>
> To be concrete, I suggest comparing the attached documentation patch
> with Robert's. Which one is more understandable?
>
Your explanation is clear, however the name max_parallel_workers makes it sound like that parallelising an operation is all about workers. Yes it depends a lot on the number of workers allocated for parallel operation, but that is not everything. I think calling it max_parallelism as suggested by Alvaro upthread suits better than max_parallel_workers.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: