Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От David G. Johnston
Тема Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Дата
Msg-id CAKFQuwbevu7RXCurir1AO-b+b0c38KQgaOMouuRcHrvcOfnndQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> I get where you're coming from, but I think Haas's query plan output is
> going to show us the confusion we're going to get.  So we need to either
> change the parameter, the explain output, or brace ourselves for endless
> repeated questions.

I get where you're coming from, too -- I think our positions are very close.

The only reason I favor defining parallel_degree = 1, rather than
doing what Tom proposes to do with that patch, is that we might as
well use the prevailing terminology used by SQL Server and Oracle (as
long as we match those semantics). Also, I think that number of cores
used is a more important consideration for users than the number of
workers used.

Users will definitely be confused about workers used vs. cores used,
but I don't think that any proposal fixes that.


Ideally each worker gets its own core - though obviously physical limitations apply.  If that's not the case then, yes, at least one user is confused...

David J.

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?
Следующее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Rename max_parallel_degree?