On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
> >> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >>> FWIW, I agree with Bruce that using "degree" here is a poor choice.
> >>> It's an unnecessary dependence on technical terminology that many
> >>> will not be familiar with.
> >> FWIW, SQL Server calls it "degree of parallelism" as well (
> >> https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188611(v=sql.105).aspx).
> >> their configuration option is "max degree of parallelism":
> >> https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms181007(v=sql.105).aspx.
> > Yes, but both they and Oracle appear to consider "degree" to mean the
> > total number of processors used, not the number of secondary jobs in
> > addition to the main one. The only thing worse than employing obscure
> > technical terminology is employing it incorrectly: that way, you get to
> > confuse both the users who know what it means and those who don't.
> This is not so clear-cut as you are making it out to be. For example,
> see http://www.akadia.com/services/ora_parallel_processing.html - viz
> "The number of parallel slave processes associated with an operation
> is called its degree of parallelism", which is pretty close to what
> the parameter currently called max_parallel_degree actually does.
So maybe something like session_parallel_degree, to add another color to