Josh berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: > 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? That would fit in as something like max_parallel_workers_per_statement. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers