Re: postgresql.conf.sample ordering for IO, worker related GUCs

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 10:25 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-01-30 21:24:05 -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On January 30, 2025 8:55:36 PM EST, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > >Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > >> While working on polishing the AIO patchset, I was trying to figure out where
> > >> to fit the new GUCs. So far I had a new "top-level" #--- style section named
> > >> "WIP AIO GUC docs" which I suspect you all won't let me get away with.
> > >> There is an existing (sub-)section which already has a few related GUCs and
> > >> could fit AIO related ones.
> > >
> > >I think the normal theory for postgresql.conf.sample is that it should
> > >match the organization of config.sgml. What are you planning there?
> >
> > Pretty much the same. I.e. I'm thinking that the worker stuff should be it's
> > own subsection and that the existing IO parameters should be moved to either
> > a new subsection or a new top level section. But I'm wondering how others
> > think it should be structured...
>
> Here are draft changes for the minimal thing I think we should do.
>
> I don't really know what to do about the "IO" abbreviation. The other sections
> un-abbreviate abbreviations, but I suspect that Input/Output will be less
> informative than IO to most...
>
> I still wonder if we instead ought to create a top-level "IO" section instead
> of leaving it under "Resource Usage". How many IOs we combine, how
> aggressively we flush unflushed data, etc only kinda fits into the resource
> usage category.
>

+1 from me, though I did pause on whether it should be called
"background workers" rather than "worker processes", but I think this
is the right direction.

Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net