| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Correct the documentation for work_mem |
| Date: | 2023-04-21 16:59:57 |
| Message-ID: | d4052199-0f74-da33-9b5e-2250aea05edd@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 21.04.23 16:28, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
> I recently noticed the following in the work_mem [1] documentation:
>
> “Note that for a complex query, several sort or hash operations might be
> running in parallel;”
>
> The use of “parallel” here is misleading as this has nothing to do with
> parallel query, but
>
> rather several operations in a plan running simultaneously.
>
> The use of parallel in this doc predates parallel query support, which
> explains the usage.
>
> I suggest a small doc fix:
>
> “Note that for a complex query, several sort or hash operations might be
> running simultaneously;”
Here is a discussion of these terms:
https://takuti.me/note/parallel-vs-concurrent/
I think "concurrently" is the correct word here.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-04-21 17:00:23 | Re: LLVM strip -x fails |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2023-04-21 16:56:52 | Re: [PATCH] Add `verify-system` sslmode to use system CA pool for server cert |