Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b7puK-0007aZ-SM for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 31 May 2016 20:04:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b7puK-0003Z7-88 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 31 May 2016 20:04:56 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b7puI-0003WW-QW for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 31 May 2016 20:04:54 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b7puF-0006zy-OK for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 31 May 2016 20:04:54 +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 u4VK4ftZ031424; Tue, 31 May 2016 16:04:41 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Alvaro Herrera cc: Robert Haas , Josh berkus , Peter Eisentraut , Peter Geoghegan , Noah Misch , David Rowley , Amit Kapila , Magnus Hagander , Bruce Momjian , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? In-reply-to: <20160531195553.GA895326@alvherre.pgsql> References: <20160531195553.GA895326@alvherre.pgsql> Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera message dated "Tue, 31 May 2016 15:55:53 -0400" Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 16:04:41 -0400 Message-ID: <31423.1464725081@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 Alvaro Herrera writes: > Robert Haas wrote: >> So I think in the long run we should have three limits: >> >> 1. Cluster-wide limit on number of worker processes for all purposes >> (currently, max_worker_processes). >> >> 2. Cluster-wide limit on number of worker processes for parallelism >> (don't have this yet). >> >> 3. Per-operation limit on number of worker processes for parallelism >> (currently, max_parallel_degree). >> >> Whatever we rename, there needs to be enough semantic space between #1 >> and #3 to allow for the possibility - I think the very likely >> possibility - that we will eventually also want #2. > max_background_workers sounds fine to me for #1, and I propose to add #2 > in 9.6 rather than wait. +1 to both points. > max_total_parallel_query_workers ? The name should be closely related to what we use for #3. I could go for max_total_parallel_workers for #2 and max_parallel_workers for #3. Or maybe max_parallel_workers_total? 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