|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Fix the description of GUC "max_locks_per_transaction" and "max_pred_locks_per_transaction" in guc_table.c|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
"wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> writes:
> On Tues, Apr 4, 2023 at 23:48 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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
|Next Message||Emre Hasegeli||2023-04-07 17:35:18||Unnecessary confirm work on logical replication|
|Previous Message||Melanie Plageman||2023-04-07 16:17:38||Re: Track IO times in pg_stat_io|