Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b86re-0007R8-5b for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 14:11:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b86rc-00066L-W8 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 14:11:17 +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 1b86rb-000653-Db for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 14:11:15 +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 1b86rU-0001sL-4k for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 14:11:15 +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 u51EAjt3017945; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 10:10:45 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Amit Kapila cc: Josh berkus , Peter Geoghegan , Robert Haas , Noah Misch , David Rowley , Alvaro Herrera , Magnus Hagander , Bruce Momjian , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? In-reply-to: References: <20160426152217.GA548975@alvherre.pgsql> <20160529053300.GD496776@tornado.leadboat.com> <574DBEA4.9000205@agliodbs.com> <8716.1464714201@sss.pgh.pa.us> <574DC585.7010507@agliodbs.com> <574DC881.5010006@agliodbs.com> <9816.14647! 15836@sss.pgh.pa.us> <21146.1464717625@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Amit Kapila message dated "Wed, 01 Jun 2016 15:35:44 +0530" Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:10:45 -0400 Message-ID: <17944.1464790245@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 Amit Kapila writes: > Your explanation is clear, however the name max_parallel_workers makes it > sound like that parallelising an operation is all about workers. Yes it > depends a lot on the number of workers allocated for parallel operation, > but that is not everything. I think calling it max_parallelism as > suggested by Alvaro upthread suits better than max_parallel_workers. I don't think that's a good direction at all. This entire discussion is caused by the fact that it's not very clear what "max_parallel_degree" measures. Fixing that problem by renaming the variable to something that doesn't even pretend to tell you what it's counting is not an improvement. 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