On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Christoph Berg <m...@debian.org> wrote: > Re: Robert Haas 2016-05-02 > <CA+TgmobRmK649eDYvF6dgnQJNJVJvZffDz674wD+GWqCcb=y...@mail.gmail.com> >> max_parallel_degree -> max_parallel_workers >> parallel_degree -> parallel_workers >> >> I would prefer to keep it as "degree". It's a reasonable term of art, >> and it also improves grep-ability. But I'm willing to go do the above >> renaming if there is a clear consensus behind it. Alternatively, I'm >> willing to make it 1-based rather than 0-based if there is a clear >> consensus on that option, though unsurprisingly I prefer it the way it >> is now. Do we have such a consensus? > > Fwiw the one thing I remember from when I read first about the feature > was a big "wtf if I set that to 1, I'll actually get 2 processes?". So > +1 on doing *something* about it.
To be clear, you'll get 1 new process in addition to the 1 that is already running. But vote noted. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
