On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Josh berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> > I was assuming that we would have *both* per-operation and per-statement
> > limits.  I can see reasons for having both, I can see why power users
> > would want both, but it's going to be overwhelming to casual users.
> I don't think so.  I think the fact that this is per-gather-node
> rather than per-statement right now is basically a defect.  Once we
> have a per-statement limit, I see no value in having the
> per-gather-node setting.  So, yes, at that point, I would push to
> rename the GUC.
​How big is the hazard of future-naming this and documenting the present
limitation?  Is the casual user reading explains even going to be aware of
that particular implementation detail?

David J.

Reply via email to