Re: BUG #16972: parameter parallel_leader_participation's category problem
От | Bharath Rupireddy |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #16972: parameter parallel_leader_participation's category problem |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CALj2ACUr--FC3ac7LiZABtX6FaeLqfwbyi+2m629wSPYiZZX5Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #16972: parameter parallel_leader_participation's category problem (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #16972: parameter parallel_leader_participation's category problem
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 8:16 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > So I agree that your patch is adapted, even postgresql.conf.sample > gets that right. Something that your patch makes worse is the > alphabetical order of the parameters listed in this section > (backend_flush_after can be also blamed here), so I'll go reorder this > sub-area a bit while on it, except if somebody objects. If we arrange only the "Asynchronous Behaviour" subsection in alphabetical order, I think the order may not be maintained in case of new GUCs that may get added there. Because all the other subsections are unordered and there's no note of maintaining the order as such. And, it looks like the relevant GUCs are grouped for better readability. For instance, all "parallelism", "io_concurrency", "jit_" related GUCs are together. Developers tend to add the new GUCs in relevant areas. So, -1 for reordering. With Regards, Bharath Rupireddy. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: