On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I've largely given up hope of coming up with an alternative that can >> attract more than one vote and that is also at least mildly accurate, >> but one idea is max_parallel_workers_per_gather_node. That will be >> totally clear. > > Given the reference to Gather nodes, couldn't you drop the word > "parallel"? "node" might not be necessary either.
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. -- 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
