| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kline <kline(dot)christopher(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #18343: Incorrect description in postgresql.conf for max_parallel_workers_per_gather |
| Date: | 2024-02-15 19:41:59 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYVR+_T_1jXbgr09ELnHwVY+F2X2EWKduHLUeff9WmSGg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:31 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Christopher Kline <kline(dot)christopher(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Thank you all for the clarification. I like David Johnston's suggestion
> of
> > # capped at max_parallel_workers
> > That clearly defines the constraint.
>
> I was thinking perhaps "# limited by max_parallel_workers"
> or something like that. "Capped at" isn't phraseology we
> use elsewhere.
>
>
"limited by" is indeed better IMO as well.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kline | 2024-02-15 20:29:06 | Re: BUG #18343: Incorrect description in postgresql.conf for max_parallel_workers_per_gather |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-02-15 17:31:33 | Re: BUG #18343: Incorrect description in postgresql.conf for max_parallel_workers_per_gather |