On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > I was assuming that we would have *both* per-operation and per-statement > limits. I can see reasons for having both, I can see why power users > would want both, but it's going to be overwhelming to casual users.
I don't think so. I think the fact that this is per-gather-node rather than per-statement right now is basically a defect. Once we have a per-statement limit, I see no value in having the per-gather-node setting. So, yes, at that point, I would push to rename the GUC.
How big is the hazard of future-naming this and documenting the present limitation? Is the casual user reading explains even going to be aware of that particular implementation detail?
