On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I wrote: > > I really think that a GUC named "max_parallel_workers", which in fact > > limits the number of workers and not something else, is the way to go. > > To be concrete, I suggest comparing the attached documentation patch > with Robert's. Which one is more understandable? >
Your explanation is clear, however the name max_parallel_workers makes it sound like that parallelising an operation is all about workers. Yes it depends a lot on the number of workers allocated for parallel operation, but that is not everything. I think calling it max_parallelism as suggested by Alvaro upthread suits better than max_parallel_workers.
