Re: Docs: Move parallel_leader_participation GUC description under relevant category

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?