On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 02:23:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > Also, consider that we have the related but actually sorta different > > GUC max_worker_processes. I think max_parallel_workers to control the > > per-query behavior and max_worker_processes to control the global > > system behavior would be confusing - those names are very close > > together. > > Well, that just says that we'd better reconsider *both* of those names. > Frankly, neither of them is well chosen, and the fact that they currently > sound unrelated is a bug not a feature. What about something like > "max_overall_worker_processes" and "max_session_worker_processes"?
I don't think "overall" works. I am think "max_cluster_worker_processes" and "max_session_worker_processes" works. I guess you could also use "max_server_worker_processes", but that is referring to the database server, not the OS-level server. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
