Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b7vgT-0002Jr-RD for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 02:15:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b7vgT-0005po-Df for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 02:15:01 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b7vf7-0003d7-Hl for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 02:13:37 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b7vf4-0002g2-HU for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 02:13:37 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u512DODR014346; Tue, 31 May 2016 22:13:24 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Peter Eisentraut , Alvaro Herrera , Josh berkus , Peter Geoghegan , Noah Misch , David Rowley , Amit Kapila , Magnus Hagander , Bruce Momjian , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? In-reply-to: References: <20160531195553.GA895326@alvherre.pgsql> <31423.1464725081@sss.pgh.pa.us> <13950.1464746571@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Tue, 31 May 2016 22:11:01 -0400" Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 22:13:24 -0400 Message-ID: <14345.1464747204@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> The reloption does not set an exact value, according to the code: > True, max_parallel_degree is an overriding limit. But the point is > that, without the reloption, you can't get lots of workers on a small > table. The reloption lets you do that. Color me skeptical that that's actually a good idea ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers