Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 8:23 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. > > > FWIW, SQL Server calls it "degree of parallelism" as well ( > > https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188611(v=sql.105).aspx). And > > their configuration option is "max degree of parallelism": > > https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms181007(v=sql.105).aspx. > > Yes, but both they and Oracle appear to consider "degree" to mean the > total number of processors used, not the number of secondary jobs in > addition to the main one. The only thing worse than employing obscure > technical terminology is employing it incorrectly:
What about calling it something even simpler, such as "max_parallelism"? This avoids such cargo cult, and there's no implication that it's per-query. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
