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