Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh berkus
Subject Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Date
Msg-id 574DC585.7010507@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 05/31/2016 10:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> I realize there's a lot of water under the bridge here, but I think
>> we're going to get 1000 questions on -general of the type:  "I asked for
>> 8 parallel workers, why did I only get 7?".  I believe we will regret
>> this change.
>> So, one vote from me to revert.
> 
> Well, that gets back to the question of whether average users will
> understand the "degree" terminology.  For the record, while I do not
> like the current behavior either, this was not the solution I favored.
> I thought we should rename the GUC and keep it as meaning the number
> of additional worker processes.

I will happily bet anyone a nice dinner in Ottawa that most users will
not understand it.

Compare this:

"max_parallel is the maximum number of parallel workers which will work
on each stage of the query which is parallizable.  If you set it to 4,
you get up to 4 workers."

with this:

"max_parallel_degree is the amount of parallelism in the query, with the
understanding that the original parent process counts as 1, which means
that if you set it to 1 you get no parallelism, and if you want 4
parallel workers you need to set it to 5."

Which one of those is going to require more explanations on -general and
-novice?  Bets?

Let's not be complicated for the sake of being complicated.

-- 
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?