Re: Can we do something to help stop users mistakenly using force_parallel_mode?

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Can we do something to help stop users mistakenly using force_parallel_mode?
Date: 2023-02-14 22:32:30
Message-ID: CAApHDvqwc_iDaMo_Ja0tnftfSVv5iEh+-4pAxbhh6XdhoTALPw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 11:27, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> It's just occurred to me that this could break the buildfarm fairly comprehensively. I just took a count and we have 74 members using force_parallel_mode. Maybe we need to keep force_parallel_mode as an alternative spelling for debug_parallel_query until we can get them all switched over. I know it's more trouble ...

Yeah, I mentioned in [1] about that and took measures there to keep
the old name in place. In the latest patch, there's an entry in
map_old_guc_names[] to allow the old name to work. I think the
buildfarm will still work ok because of that.

What I'm not so sure about is how to go about getting all owners to
change the config for versions >= PG16. Is that a question of emailing
each owner individually to ask them if they can make the change? Or
should we just forever keep the map_old_guc_names[] entry for this?

David

[1] https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvrT8eq0UwgetGtQE7XLC8HFN8weqembtvYxMVgtWbcnjQ@mail.gmail.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2023-02-14 22:45:42 Re: [PATCH] Add pretty-printed XML output option
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2023-02-14 22:27:15 Re: Can we do something to help stop users mistakenly using force_parallel_mode?