Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b8Djd-00083H-94 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 21:31:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b8Djc-0001nO-Rz for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 21:31:28 +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 1b8DiH-0007xG-5B for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 21:30:05 +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 1b8DiE-0000nr-6F for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 21:30:04 +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 u51LTpOg007571; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:29:51 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Amit Kapila , Josh berkus , Peter Geoghegan , Noah Misch , David Rowley , 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> <21146.1464! 717625@sss.pgh.pa.us> <17944.1464790245@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Wed, 01 Jun 2016 17:21:17 -0400" Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 17:29:51 -0400 Message-ID: <7570.1464816591@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 Robert Haas writes: > I've largely given up hope of coming up with an alternative that can > attract more than one vote and that is also at least mildly accurate, > but one idea is max_parallel_workers_per_gather_node. That will be > totally clear. Given the reference to Gather nodes, couldn't you drop the word "parallel"? "node" might not be necessary either. 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