Re: [PATCH] force_parallel_mode and GUC categories

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] force_parallel_mode and GUC categories
Date: 2021-05-08 16:39:33
Message-ID: 239283.1620491973@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> writes:
> ...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...

For the archives' sake --- these things are now committed as part of
a55a98477. I'd forgotten this thread, and then rediscovered the same
inconsistencies as Justin had while reviewing Bharath Rupireddy's patch
for bug #16997 [1].

I think this thread can now be closed off as done. However, there
are some open issues mentioned in the other thread, if anyone here
wants to comment.

regards, tom lane

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/16997-ff16127f6e0d1390%40postgresql.org

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2021-05-08 16:55:07 Re: Anti-critical-section assertion failure in mcxt.c reached by walsender
Previous Message Erik Rijkers 2021-05-08 16:08:51 Re: JSON doc example (matchiness)

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Semen Yefimenko 2021-05-10 11:14:40 Re: Very slow Query compared to Oracle / SQL - Server
Previous Message Semen Yefimenko 2021-05-08 12:06:11 Re: Very slow Query compared to Oracle / SQL - Server