"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I really think that a GUC named "max_parallel_workers", which in fact
>>> limits the number of workers and not something else, is the way to go.
> If going this route I'd still rather add the word "assisting"
> or "additional" directly into the guc name so the need to read the docs to
> determine inclusive or exclusive of the leader is alleviated.
Dunno, "max_assisting_parallel_workers" seems awfully wordy and not
remarkably clearer.
regards, tom lane
