Josh berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: > On 05/31/2016 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Josh berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: >>> One more consistency question: what's the effect of running out of >>> max_parallel_workers?
>> ITYM max_worker_processes (ie, the cluster-wide pool size)? > Yes. Sorry for contributing to the confusion. Too many > similar-sounding parameter names. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing while preparing my docs patch. At the risk of opening another can of worms, what about renaming max_worker_processes as well? It would be a good thing if that had "cluster" in it somewhere, or something that indicates it's a system-wide value not a per-session value. "max_workers_per_cluster" would answer, though I'm not in love with it particularly. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers