Re: worker_spi example BGW code GUC tweak

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: worker_spi example BGW code GUC tweak
Date: 2017-12-18 00:32:47
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob74JYb0d0+WayhvH1RKqVyP2BvMgHpJopjgWStYxPzEA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> wrote:
> Would this sample code make an even better teaching example if it
> used the existing GUC way to declare that worker_spi.naptime is
> in units of seconds?
>
> Or does it not do that for some reason I've overlooked?

Making it use GUC_UNIT_S seems like a good idea to me, but removing
the mention of seconds from the description doesn't seem like a good
idea to me.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2017-12-18 00:35:38 Re: es_query_dsa is broken
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-12-18 00:29:13 Re: pg_(total_)relation_size and partitioned tables