Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b7oFU-000076-8F for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 31 May 2016 18:18:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b7oFT-0002x9-Q4 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 31 May 2016 18:18:39 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b7oE7-0007N4-NJ for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 31 May 2016 18:17:15 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b7oE1-0004e5-0j for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 31 May 2016 18:17:14 +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 u4VIH08R021919; Tue, 31 May 2016 14:17:00 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: "David G. Johnston" cc: Josh berkus , Peter Geoghegan , Robert Haas , Noah Misch , David Rowley , Amit Kapila , 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 "David G. Johnston" message dated "Tue, 31 May 2016 14:13:34 -0400" Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:17:00 -0400 Message-ID: <21918.1464718620@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 "David G. Johnston" writes: > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I really think that a GUC named "max_parallel_workers", which in fact >>> limits the number of workers and not something else, is the way to go. > If going this route I'd still rather add the word "assisting" > or "additional" directly into the guc name so the need to read the docs to > determine inclusive or exclusive of the leader is alleviated. Dunno, "max_assisting_parallel_workers" seems awfully wordy and not remarkably clearer. 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