On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Evgeniy Shishkin <itparan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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.
Good point. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
