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