On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I really think that a GUC named "max_parallel_workers", which in fact
> > limits the number of workers and not something else, is the way to go.
> To be concrete, I suggest comparing the attached documentation patch
> with Robert's.  Which one is more understandable?

Your explanation is clear, however the name max_parallel_workers makes it
sound like that parallelising an operation is all about workers.  Yes it
depends a lot on the number of workers allocated for parallel operation,
but that is not everything.  I think calling it max_parallelism as
suggested by Alvaro upthread suits better than max_parallel_workers.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Reply via email to