On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> I've largely given up hope of coming up with an alternative that can
>> attract more than one vote and that is also at least mildly accurate,
>> but one idea is max_parallel_workers_per_gather_node. That will be
>> totally clear.
>
> Given the reference to Gather nodes, couldn't you drop the word
> "parallel"? "node" might not be necessary either.
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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
