Re: GUC names in messages

From: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: GUC names in messages
Date: 2023-11-07 20:40:48
Message-ID: CAHut+Pu4PPmyC7wSiMbCkOnYTsGKH161dj0rUzVSKAhw3_eqOQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

FWIW, I am halfway through doing regex checking of the PG16 source for
all GUC names in messages to see what current styles are in use today.

Not sure if those numbers will influence the decision.

I hope I can post my findings today or tomorrow.

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2023-11-07 20:55:48 Re: Add the ability to limit the amount of memory that can be allocated to backends.
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2023-11-07 20:14:41 Re: Popcount optimization using AVX512