Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
	by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls
 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-bugs-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1rafaS-00AtA2-At
	for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:31:52 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-bugs-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1rafaP-00EkGU-UN
	for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:31:49 +0000
Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls
 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1rafaP-00EkGM-MI
	for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:31:49 +0000
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243])
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls
 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1rafaB-006un1-Jb
	for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:31:41 +0000
Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 41FHVXd43270622;
	Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:31:33 -0500
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Christopher Kline <kline.christopher@gmail.com>
cc: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
        pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18343: Incorrect description in postgresql.conf for
 max_parallel_workers_per_gather
In-reply-to: 
 <CAArmHzSFsTQ3bPX31zDHYSMz_PiHostGKPBp7qM+WU0uz3g6OQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <18343-3a5e903d1d3692ab@postgresql.org>
 <3258900.1708012510@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAKFQuwajwK-BT40icc4EdosjNbXyF+otfdjFN9Q6uGMwC6tH7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAArmHzSFsTQ3bPX31zDHYSMz_PiHostGKPBp7qM+WU0uz3g6OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Christopher Kline <kline.christopher@gmail.com>
	message dated "Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:29:32 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3270620.1708018293.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:31:33 -0500
Message-ID: <3270621.1708018293@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Id: <pgsql-bugs.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-bugs-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-bugs>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3270621.1708018293%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Christopher Kline <kline.christopher@gmail.com> writes:
> Thank you all for the clarification. I like David Johnston's suggestion of
> # capped at max_parallel_workers
> That clearly defines the constraint.

I was thinking perhaps "# limited by max_parallel_workers"
or something like that.  "Capped at" isn't phraseology we
use elsewhere.

			regards, tom lane