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: <22988.1464720407@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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> <22988.1!
 464720407@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Tue, 31 May 2016 14:46:47 -0400"
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 15:19:17 -0400
Message-ID: <24079.1464722357@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

I wrote:
> 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.

Actually, after a bit more thought, maybe "max_background_workers" would
be a good name?  That matches its existing documentation more closely:

         Sets the maximum number of background processes that the system
         can support.  This parameter can only be set at server start.  The
         default is 8.

However, that would still leave us with max_background_workers as the
cluster-wide limit and max_parallel_workers as the per-query-node limit.
That naming isn't doing all that much to clarify the distinction.

			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