From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
        David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.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: <574DDA26.8050104@agliodbs.com>
References: <20160426152217.GA548975@alvherre.pgsql>
 <574DC881.5010006@agliodbs.com>
 <CAM3SWZS_zL8Wx-zdo_LBJu4ggVqSQZrB_be2Ht1euWQ_AbLerA@mail.gmail.com>
 <WM!03d2e4eb6a54be412896ebf7a163e0e3ca3c30ba669ab43e75f184e0eb3fee6c99a96f58b016bffa9bc4be5b1606e6be!@mailstronghold-3.zmailcloud.com>
 <574DCDFC.6060506@agliodbs.com>
 <CAM3SWZQTmjE+O-NnGthzLd61RtXkNfitWrZU6zJHHHZSB3YmEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <WM!245e067d2479177b8d8586749c4f035a1af840cf27f6849dddf2fe3ee6f91dc6eb607e4a0b5ab92b0854dee87c7d12df!@mailstronghold-3.zmailcloud.com>
 <574DD1CE.2000307@agliodbs.com>
 <b329e574-c9aa-cfb8-11db-35cb9f49d9a9@2ndquadrant.com>
 <WM!288fce8e69db04f08380cbd2be47355fa34afdc3f6f5c313bab88817b653f5fe61133471e9ac421c637052d845b6318c!@mailstronghold-2.zmailcloud.com>
 <574DD! 64A.9090600@agliodbs.com> <22406.1464719396@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <WM!6541d2e8f2f6257d78c0782a3feeae3504802cdcf1fdea980ba7c9df07fc6f6cd3be24b841a539db07a0e814d4779963!@mailstronghold-2.zmailcloud.com>
 <574DDA26.8050104@agliodbs.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
	message dated "Tue, 31 May 2016 11:38:30 -0700"
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:46:47 -0400
Message-ID: <22988.1464720407@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> On 05/31/2016 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>>> One more consistency question: what's the effect of running out of
>>> max_parallel_workers?

>> ITYM max_worker_processes (ie, the cluster-wide pool size)?

> Yes.  Sorry for contributing to the confusion.  Too many
> similar-sounding parameter names.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing while preparing my docs patch.
At the risk of opening another can of worms, what about renaming
max_worker_processes as well?  It would be a good thing if that
had "cluster" in it somewhere, or something that indicates it's a
system-wide value not a per-session value.  "max_workers_per_cluster"
would answer, though I'm not in love with it particularly.

			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