Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 01:33:00 -0400
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
	Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Message-ID: <20160529053300.GD496776@tornado.leadboat.com>
References: <20160426152217.GA548975@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CA+TgmoaDLa-pTjezHXb6S4HoNRM11TVGm_9GA9Ep+h4M_JWyLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8309.1461684889@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+Tgmoa7uxyQ=gCgTUpzhc5V+biZspi9Cot8v0S96LiATgnoYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8684.1461685466@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoYKkQigU+LeqVREnUvvd5eDx0ju8-i_QexbX_+BV0p0Fw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmobRmK649eDYvF6dgnQJNJVJvZffDz674wD+GWqCcb=YjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1K9jEnnEs_xxR0b5MH_8RTybe22DfkufL=ksX2o-ZqCMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKJS1f_kijB4EPpUrML2q=pourNnQB+WOdBuCCBSDc27BK_gvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYjMmSx93onaoOSrWcsNHmD2GOegfyrKoJs=1tbhUMHeg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoYjMmSx93onaoOSrWcsNHmD2GOegfyrKoJs=1tbhUMHeg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 02:52:30PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> OK, my reading of this thread is that there is a consensus is to
> redefine max_parallel_degree=1 as "no parallelism" and
> max_parallel_degree>1 as "parallelism using a leader plus N-1
> workers", and along with that, to keep the names unchanged.  However,
> I don't think I can get that done before beta1, at least not without a
> serious risk of breaking stuff.  I can look at this post-beta1.

[This is a generic notification.]

The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item.  Robert,
since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
9.6 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
open item ownership[1] and send a status update within 72 hours of this
message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers may
discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
well in advance of shipping 9.6rc1.  Consequently, I will appreciate your
efforts toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.

[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.GA447393@tornado.leadboat.com


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