| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Choosing parallel_degree |
| Date: | 2016-09-14 21:54:07 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobP-pBi6wcFOiiebmRFcKmsOEHsA3V15dB5YH3DacdfJg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I do think this comment is confusing:
>>
>> + * This value is not locked by the transaction, so this value may
>> + * be changed while a SELECT that has used these values for planning
>> + * is still executing.
>>
>> I don't know what it means for "this value" to be locked, or not
>> locked, by the transaction. Basically, I have no idea what this is
>> trying to explain.
>
> You're quoting that without context from the line above, which is
> "get_tablespace_io_concurrency"
Sure, but it doesn't make any sense to talk about
tablespace_io_concurrency being locked by a transaction. At least not
that I can see.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Flower | 2016-09-14 22:03:13 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty() |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-14 21:34:10 | Re: What is the posix_memalign() equivalent for the PostgreSQL? |