Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b8TBU-0007hE-0M for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 14:01:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b8TBS-0006UO-NE for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 14:01:14 +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 1b8TA6-0003RI-PH for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 13:59:50 +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 1b8TA1-0007na-Ik for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 13:59:50 +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 u52DxYHN008619; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 09:59:34 -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> <17944.1464790245@sss.pgh.pa.us> <7570.1464816591@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Thu, 02 Jun 2016 07:58:16 -0400" Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 09:59:34 -0400 Message-ID: <8618.1464875974@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: > Well, I think we could drop node, if you like. I think parallel > wouldn't be good to drop, though, because it sounds like we want a > global limit on parallel workers also, and that can't be just > max_workers. So I think we should keep parallel in there for all of > them, and have max_parallel_workers and > max_parallel_workers_per_gather(_node). The reloption and the Path > struct field can be parallel_workers rather than parallel_degree. WFM. 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