Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Since this has now come up twice, I suggest adding a comment there
>> that explains why we're intentionally ignoring max_parallel_workers.
> Good idea. How about the attached?
WFM ... but seems like there should be some flavor of this statement
in the user-facing docs too (ie, "max_parallel_workers_per_gather >
max_parallel_workers is a bad idea unless you're trying to test what
happens when a plan can't get all the workers it planned for"). The
existing text makes some vague allusions suggesting that the two
GUCs might be interrelated, but I think it could be improved.
regards, tom lane
