Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:58:04 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Message-ID: <20160425185804.GA415608@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <2219.1461523373@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> FWIW, I agree with Bruce that using "degree" here is a poor choice.
> >> It's an unnecessary dependence on technical terminology that many people
> >> will not be familiar with.
> 
> > FWIW, SQL Server calls it "degree of parallelism" as well (
> > https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188611(v=sql.105).aspx). And
> > their configuration option is "max degree of parallelism":
> > https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms181007(v=sql.105).aspx.
> 
> Yes, but both they and Oracle appear to consider "degree" to mean the
> total number of processors used, not the number of secondary jobs in
> addition to the main one.  The only thing worse than employing obscure
> technical terminology is employing it incorrectly:

What about calling it something even simpler, such as "max_parallelism"?
This avoids such cargo cult, and there's no implication that it's
per-query.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


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