On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> I think we should just go with max_parallel_workers for a limit on
>> total parallel workers within max_work_processes, and
>> max_parallel_workers_per_gather for a per-Gather limit.  It's slightly
>> annoying that we may end up renaming the latter GUC, but not as
>> annoying as spending another three weeks debating this and missing
>> beta2.
> +1.  I'm not as convinced as you are that we'll replace the GUC later,
> but in any case this is an accurate description of the current
> semantics.  And I'm really *not* in favor of fudging the name with
> the intent of changing the GUC's semantics later --- that would fail
> all sorts of compatibility expectations.

Here's a patch change max_parallel_degree to
max_parallel_workers_per_gather, and also changing parallel_degree to
parallel_workers.  I haven't tackled adding a separate
max_parallel_workers, at least not yet.  Are people OK with this?

Note that there is a dump/restore hazard if people have set the
parallel_degree reloption on a beta1 install, or used ALTER { USER |
DATABASE } .. SET parallel_degree.  Can everybody live with that?
Should I bump catversion when applying this?

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Attachment: parallel-degree-to-workers-v1.patch
Description: binary/octet-stream

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to