| From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] force_parallel_mode and GUC categories |
| Date: | 2021-04-29 04:24:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20210429042404.GG27406@telsasoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 10:50:53AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> - {"track_commit_timestamp", PGC_POSTMASTER, REPLICATION,
> + {"track_commit_timestamp", PGC_POSTMASTER, REPLICATION_SENDING,
> I can get behind this change for clarity where it gets actively used.
I'm not sure what you meant?
...but, I realized just now that *zero* other GUCs use "REPLICATION".
And the documentation puts it in 20.6.1. Sending Servers,
so it still seems to me that this is correct to move this, too.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/runtime-config-replication.html
Then, I wonder if REPLICATION should be removed from guc_tables.h...
--
Justin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-04-29 04:25:30 | Re: Replication slot stats misgivings |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-04-29 04:21:43 | Re: [BUG]"FailedAssertion" reported in lazy_scan_heap() when running logical replication |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | aditya desai | 2021-04-29 09:22:23 | Error while calling proc with table type from Application |
| Previous Message | Jean-Christophe Boggio | 2021-04-27 19:49:59 | Re: Order of execution |