| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] force_parallel_mode and GUC categories |
| Date: | 2021-04-12 05:40:52 |
| Message-ID: | 2746080.1618206052@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> However, I'd like to think that we can do better than what's proposed
> in the patch. There are a couple of things to consider here:
> - Should the parameter be renamed to reflect that it should only be
> used for testing purposes?
-1 to that part, because it would break a bunch of buildfarm animals'
configurations. I doubt that any gain in clarity would be worth it.
> - Should we make more general the description of the developer options
> in the docs?
Perhaps ... what did you have in mind?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2021-04-12 05:46:30 | Re: [PATCH] Identify LWLocks in tracepoints |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2021-04-12 05:28:37 | Re: [PATCH] force_parallel_mode and GUC categories |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Paul Friedman | 2021-04-12 19:37:42 | LWLocks by LockManager slowing large DB |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2021-04-12 05:28:37 | Re: [PATCH] force_parallel_mode and GUC categories |