On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > To summarize the positions as I understand them: > > Magnus seems OK with the way things are. > Peter wants to change either the fact that it is 0-based or the fact > that it is called degree, but is OK with either. > Tom doesn't like "degree" and also thinks anything called degree > should 1-based, but it sounds like he's more interested in changing > the first thing than the second one > Bruce and JD seemed to like degree -> workers. > JD also suggested another option that nobody else endorsed. > Alvaro suggested another option that nobody else endorsed. > > Does anyone else want to vote? >
I think the way it is currently in HEAD seems easy to correlate how the feature works, but may be it appears to me that way because I am involved from long time with this implementation. I also think one can easily confused among max_parallel_workers and max_worker_processes, so if we want to change, my vote goes with changing the default of max_parallel_degree to 1 (as suggested by Peter G.). With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
