Re: Docs: Move parallel_leader_participation GUC description under relevant category

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
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 02:30:20
Message-ID: YH+OPAQRLnRCp5Xb@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next 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?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-04-21 02:22:40 Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety