On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 02:23:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > Also, consider that we have the related but actually sorta different
> > GUC max_worker_processes. I think max_parallel_workers to control the
> > per-query behavior and max_worker_processes to control the global
> > system behavior would be confusing - those names are very close
> > together.
>
> Well, that just says that we'd better reconsider *both* of those names.
> Frankly, neither of them is well chosen, and the fact that they currently
> sound unrelated is a bug not a feature. What about something like
> "max_overall_worker_processes" and "max_session_worker_processes"?
I don't think "overall" works. I am think
"max_cluster_worker_processes" and "max_session_worker_processes" works.
I guess you could also use "max_server_worker_processes", but that is
referring to the database server, not the OS-level server.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
