Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> So I think in the long run we should have three limits:
>>
>> 1. Cluster-wide limit on number of worker processes for all purposes
>> (currently, max_worker_processes).
>>
>> 2. Cluster-wide limit on number of worker processes for parallelism
>> (don't have this yet).
>>
>> 3. Per-operation limit on number of worker processes for parallelism
>> (currently, max_parallel_degree).
>>
>> Whatever we rename, there needs to be enough semantic space between #1
>> and #3 to allow for the possibility - I think the very likely
>> possibility - that we will eventually also want #2.
> max_background_workers sounds fine to me for #1, and I propose to add #2
> in 9.6 rather than wait.
+1 to both points.
> max_total_parallel_query_workers ?
The name should be closely related to what we use for #3. I could go for
max_total_parallel_workers for #2 and max_parallel_workers for #3.
Or maybe max_parallel_workers_total?
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
