From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, leiyanliang(at)highgo(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Docs: Move parallel_leader_participation GUC description under relevant category |
Date: | 2021-04-21 02:35:37 |
Message-ID: | CALj2ACXRn=TveOG6+eY4ubCO++QUFXxrZ-S-Dc9==hfGm-gfwg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 8:00 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 09:16:49PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > It looks like even though the commit e5253fdc4f that added the
> > parallel_leader_participation GUC correctly categorized it as
> > RESOURCES_ASYNCHRONOUS parameter in the code, but in the docs it is kept
> > under irrelevant section i.e. "Query Planning/Other Planner Options". This
> > is reported in the bugs list [1], cc-ed the reporter.
> >
> > Attaching a small patch that moves the GUC description to the right place.
> > Thoughts?
>
> I would keep the discussion on the existing thread rather than spawn a
> new one on -hackers for exactly the same problem, so I'll reply there
> in a minute.
I thought we might miss the discussion in the hackers list. I'm sorry
for starting a new thread. I'm closing this thread.
With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com | 2021-04-21 02:41:58 | RE: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety |
Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-04-21 02:32:49 | Re: Is it worth to optimize VACUUM/ANALYZE by combining duplicate rel instances into single rel instance? |