On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> I think the word "degree" is largely seen as a bad idea: it would become >>> a somewhat better idea only if we change how it works so that it matches >>> what other DBMSs do, but you oppose that. Hence my proposal to get rid >>> of that word in the UI. > >> Well I agree with that up to a point, but I think ALTER TABLE foo SET >> (parallelism = 4) is not a model of clarity. "parallelism" or >> "parallel" is not obviously an integer quality. I guess we could >> s/parallel_degree/parallel_workers/g. I find that terminology less >> elegant than "parallel degree", but I can live with it. > > Shouldn't it be "max_parallel_workers", at least in some contexts? > Otherwise, I'd read it as a promise that exactly that many workers > will be used.
Yeah, I guess it would be parallel_degree -> parallel_workers and max_parallel_degree -> max_parallel_workers. I still think max_parallel_workers is confusingly similar to max_worker_processes, but nothing's going to make everyone completely happy here. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
