Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwaBbH53x+i0MbaFzBDh3DhAXPS7EzjpEGKVvPRW-6HzNg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> I was assuming that we would have *both* per-operation and per-statement
> limits. I can see reasons for having both, I can see why power users
> would want both, but it's going to be overwhelming to casual users.
I don't think so. I think the fact that this is per-gather-node
rather than per-statement right now is basically a defect. Once we
have a per-statement limit, I see no value in having the
per-gather-node setting. So, yes, at that point, I would push to
rename the GUC.
How big is the hazard of future-naming this and documenting the present limitation? Is the casual user reading explains even going to be aware of that particular implementation detail?
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: