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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
