Re: Fix the description of GUC "max_locks_per_transaction" and "max_pred_locks_per_transaction" in guc_table.c
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Fix the description of GUC "max_locks_per_transaction" and "max_pred_locks_per_transaction" in guc_table.c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3049104.1680888742@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: Fix the description of GUC "max_locks_per_transaction" and "max_pred_locks_per_transaction" in guc_table.c ("wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com" <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com>) |
Ответы |
RE: Fix the description of GUC "max_locks_per_transaction" and "max_pred_locks_per_transaction" in guc_table.c
Re: Fix the description of GUC "max_locks_per_transaction" and "max_pred_locks_per_transaction" in guc_table.c |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com" <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com> writes: > On Tues, Apr 4, 2023 at 23:48 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I like the "per eligible process" wording, at least for guc_tables.c; >> or maybe it could be "per server process"? That would be more >> accurate and not much longer than what we have now. > Thanks both for sharing your opinions. > I agree that verbose descriptions make maintenance difficult. > For consistency, I unified the formulas in guc_tables.c and pg-doc into the same > suggested short formula. Attach the new patch. After studying this for awhile, I decided "server process" is probably the better term --- people will have some idea what that means, while "eligible process" is not a term we use anywhere else. Pushed with that change and some minor other wordsmithing. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: