On 25 April 2016 at 03:44, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> FWIW, I agree with Bruce that using "degree" here is a poor choice. >> It's an unnecessary dependence on technical terminology that many people >> will not be familiar with. > > And many others will. Some made-up term that is entirely > PostgreSQL-specific is not going to be better.
Just to add my 2c, "degree" implies some sort of graded scale. So setting it to (say) 10 would be "maximum", setting to 0 would be "none" and setting it to anything in between would be relative to the maximum. eg in Vol26 "Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology" (the first compsci reference that appeared for a google search) there are three levels of granularity of degrees of parallelism. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z4KECsT59NwC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=degree+of+parallelism Frankly it seems that the SQL crowd stole the computer science term and applied it incorrectly. Having a configuration option "_workers" makes much more sense to me. It absolutely describes what it does without needing to refer to a manual, and it removes ambiguity. Geoff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
