On 5/31/16 8:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
Robert Haas wrote:
I just want to point out that if we change #1, we're breaking
postgresql.conf compatibility for, IMHO, not a whole lot of benefit.
I'd just leave it alone.


We can add the old name as a synonym in guc.c to maintain compatibility.

I doubt this is much of an issue at this point; max_worker_processes has
only been there a release or so, and surely there are very few people
explicitly setting it, given its limited use-case up to now.  It will be
really hard to change it after 9.6, but I think we could still get away
with that today.

max_worker_processes was added in 9.4, so it's been there for two
releases, but it probably is true that few people have set it.
Nevertheless, I don't think there's much evidence that it is a bad
enough name that we really must change it.

ISTM that all the confusion about parallel query would go away if the setting was max_parallel_assistants instead of _workers. It's exactly how parallel query works: there are helpers that *assist* the backend in executing the query.

The big downside to "assistants" is it breaks all lexical connection to max_worker_processes. So what if we change that to max_assistant_processes? I think "assistant" and "worker" are close enough in meaning for "stand alone" uses of BG workers so as not to be confusing, and I don't see any options for parallelism that are any clearer.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)   mobile: 512-569-9461


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

Reply via email to