> On Jan 10, 2018, at 21:45, Robert Haas <robertmh...@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.
