Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >> I've largely given up hope of coming up with an alternative that can > >> attract more than one vote and that is also at least mildly accurate, > >> but one idea is max_parallel_workers_per_gather_node. That will be > >> totally clear. > > > > Given the reference to Gather nodes, couldn't you drop the word > > "parallel"? "node" might not be necessary either. > > 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.
I believe that it will be impossible to find a name that makes the meaning clear to everybody. Those who do not read the documentation will always find a way to misunderstand it. These suggestions have the added disadvantage that it is hard to remember them. I see myself going, "I have to change the maximum for parallel workers, what was the name again?", and having to resort to the manual (or SHOW ALL) each time. I suggest to follow the precedent of "work_mem", stick with something simple like "max_parallel_workers" and accept the risk of not being totally self-explanatory. Yours, Laurenz Albe -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
