On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 5/31/16 4:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> The name should be closely related to what we use for #3. I could go for >> max_total_parallel_workers for #2 and max_parallel_workers for #3. >> Or maybe max_parallel_workers_total? > > Most cluster-wide settings like this are named max_something > (max_connections, max_wal_senders, max_replication_slots), whereas things > that apply on a lower level are named max_something_per_something > (max_files_per_process, max_locks_per_transations). > > So let's leave max_worker_processes mostly alone and not add any _total_, > _absolute_, _altogether_. ;-)
That's interesting, because it suggests that max_parallel_degree might end up being called something that doesn't begin with "max". Which is an interesting line of thought. Now, it does function as a maximum of sorts, but that doesn't necessarily imply that it has to have max in the name. By way of analogy, work_mem is not called max_work_mem, yet everybody still understands that the actual memory used might be less than the configured value. Now, this case is a little trickier. If we called it simply parallel_degree rather than max_parallel_degree, then it would have the same name as the reloption. But the reloption sets an exact value, and the GUC sets a cap, which is a significant difference. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
