Subject: Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
References: <20160426152217.GA548975@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CAKJS1f_kijB4EPpUrML2q=pourNnQB+WOdBuCCBSDc27BK_gvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYjMmSx93onaoOSrWcsNHmD2GOegfyrKoJs=1tbhUMHeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160529053300.GD496776@tornado.leadboat.com>
 <CA+TgmoYqLP6dPpcLvWU-ToJFNn4Dp3NE2qAmgXprKN3S6wTSFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <WM!782dde02eb02f131fac86b9aa0affdd2fa2450ae598af9554b103693ecd60442e44967d03f38f3b7cda9ff5b35da9166!@mailstronghold-2.zmailcloud.com>
 <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> <9816.1464715836@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: 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>
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Organization: Command Prompt, Inc.
Message-ID: <574DCCB4.8060907@commandprompt.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 10:41:08 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9816.1464715836@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 05/31/2016 10:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> On 05/31/2016 10:16 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>> But the distinction between parallel workers and backends that can
>>> participate in parallel query does need to be user-visible. Worker
>>> processes are a commodity (i.e. the user must consider
>>> max_worker_processes).
>
>> It's still WAY simpler to understand "max_parallel is the number of
>> parallel workers I requested".
>
>> Any system where you set it to 2 and get only 1 worker on an idle system
>> is going to cause endless queries on the mailing lists.
>
> 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.
>

I agree with Tom here. If we are being pedantic for the sake of being 
pedantic we are just causing frustration. The term max_parallel_workers 
is simple, easy to understand and accurate enough.

Sincerely,

JD


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                         +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers