On 06/02/2016 04:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > Well, I think we could drop node, if you like. I think parallel > wouldn't be good to drop, though, because it sounds like we want a > global limit on parallel workers also, and that can't be just > max_workers. So I think we should keep parallel in there for all of > them, and have max_parallel_workers and > max_parallel_workers_per_gather(_node). The reloption and the Path > struct field can be parallel_workers rather than parallel_degree.
So does that mean we'll rename it if you manage to implement a parameter which controls the number of workers for the whole statement? -- -- Josh Berkus Red Hat OSAS (any opinions are my own) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
