Josh berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes:
> On 06/02/2016 04:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> 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.
> So does that mean we'll rename it if you manage to implement a parameter
> which controls the number of workers for the whole statement?
That would fit in as something like max_parallel_workers_per_statement.
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
