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.