From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
cc: 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: <574DBEA4.9000205@agliodbs.com>
References: <20160426152217.GA548975@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CA+TgmoaDLa-pTjezHXb6S4HoNRM11TVGm_9GA9Ep+h4M_JWyLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8309.1461684889@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+Tgmoa7uxyQ=gCgTUpzhc5V+biZspi9Cot8v0S96LiATgnoYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8684.1461685466@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoYKkQigU+LeqVREnUvvd5eDx0ju8-i_QexbX_+BV0p0Fw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmobRmK649eDYvF6dgnQJNJVJvZffDz674wD+GWqCcb=YjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1K9jEnnEs_xxR0b5MH_8RTybe22DfkufL=ksX2o-ZqCMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <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>
Comments: In-reply-to Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
	message dated "Tue, 31 May 2016 09:41:08 -0700"
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 13:03:21 -0400
Message-ID: <8716.1464714201@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> I realize there's a lot of water under the bridge here, but I think
> we're going to get 1000 questions on -general of the type:  "I asked for
> 8 parallel workers, why did I only get 7?".  I believe we will regret
> this change.
> So, one vote from me to revert.

Well, that gets back to the question of whether average users will
understand the "degree" terminology.  For the record, while I do not
like the current behavior either, this was not the solution I favored.
I thought we should rename the GUC and keep it as meaning the number
of additional worker processes.

			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