From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
 Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
        Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
        David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>,
        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?
In-reply-to: <575051AF.2090101@agliodbs.com>
References: <20160426152217.GA548975@alvherre.pgsql>
 <574DBEA4.9000205@agliodbs.com> <8716.1464714201@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <WM!fa29cdfaada6f23ea036083b3b09c992113c0dd0d39c12a9cb6f842c5da62c7ec3f6f29cf1a792b4d2a344288b7c1492!@mailstronghold-2.zmailcloud.com>
 <574DC585.7010507@agliodbs.com>
 <CAM3SWZR6cd4v-LMmu9hoMR0pRVH9hKPSchEyH=v6BOo7OdhY5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <WM!4d4bffdc428f6cc6f750204a44dd53cae60035c32efd88a025cf336cd84efaf89a3b03b6e585b4ba6d94b14cd3339b6b!@mailstronghold-3.zmailcloud.com>
 <574DC881.5010006@agliodbs.com>
 <CAA4eK1J+mSjzoWLXe=azqrLDN9KQqPcf7T5=SKbTFWMZHBS5kA@mail.gmail.com>
 <17944.1464790245@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoYZtSDViK2ana7NmPkOGX+wpTUjY2iO4whEhsePmtJDjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7570.1464816591@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoZehxRoiby6Nj9mFO5pz6Ufdd9-bqa9e0zrKsgOZas7TQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <WM!805040707366f5cdb3300e025b7980c02089ce1331b645738e0eed164506a414e003d0d5027fbf21b435d5f3062c9bcf!@mailstronghold-1.zmailcloud.com>
 <575051AF.2090101@agliodbs.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
	message dated "Thu, 02 Jun 2016 08:33:03 -0700"
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 11:53:31 -0400
Message-ID: <21660.1464882811@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> On 06/02/2016 04:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Well, I think we could drop node, if you like.  I think parallel
>> wouldn't be good to drop, though, because it sounds like we want a
>> global limit on parallel workers also, and that can't be just
>> max_workers.  So I think we should keep parallel in there for all of
>> them, and have max_parallel_workers and
>> max_parallel_workers_per_gather(_node).  The reloption and the Path
>> struct field can be parallel_workers rather than parallel_degree.

> So does that mean we'll rename it if you manage to implement a parameter
> which controls the number of workers for the whole statement?

That would fit in as something like max_parallel_workers_per_statement.

			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