On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Evgeniy Shishkin <itparanoia@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 2018, at 21:45, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The documentation for max_parallel_workers_maintenance cribs from the
>> documentation for max_parallel_workers_per_gather in saying that we'll
>> use fewer workers than expected "which may be inefficient".
>
> Can we actually call it max_parallel_maintenance_workers instead?
> I mean we don't have work_mem_maintenance.
Good point.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company