Hi,
Zhang Mingli www.hashdata.xyz On Oct 9, 2024 at 20:35 +0800, Matthias van de Meent <boekew...@gmail.com>, wrote: > Hi, > > Whilst doing some digging in parallel code, I noticed that > max_parallel_maintenance_workers is registered as guc with a manual > value of 1024, while max_parallel_workers_per_gather uses > MAX_PARALLEL_WORKER_LIMIT (also 1024). After some archeology, the > discrepancy seems to have existed ever since > max_parallel_maintenance_workers was originally introduced, as the > patch development that introduced the GUC that eventually got > committed predates the use of MAX_PARALLEL_WORKER_LIMIT in guc.c (now > guc_tables.c), and the change to the definition of sibling GUCs of > max_parallel_workers and max_parallel_workers_per_gather wasn't > noticed during that development. > > PFA a trivial one-line patch that makes that a bit more consistent. LGTM.
