From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | leiyanliang(at)highgo(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #16972: parameter parallel_leader_participation's category problem |
Date: | 2021-04-21 03:45:23 |
Message-ID: | CALj2ACUr--FC3ac7LiZABtX6FaeLqfwbyi+2m629wSPYiZZX5Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 8:16 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> So I agree that your patch is adapted, even postgresql.conf.sample
> gets that right. Something that your patch makes worse is the
> alphabetical order of the parameters listed in this section
> (backend_flush_after can be also blamed here), so I'll go reorder this
> sub-area a bit while on it, except if somebody objects.
If we arrange only the "Asynchronous Behaviour" subsection in
alphabetical order, I think the order may not be maintained in case of
new GUCs that may get added there. Because all the other subsections
are unordered and there's no note of maintaining the order as such.
And, it looks like the relevant GUCs are grouped for better
readability. For instance, all "parallelism", "io_concurrency", "jit_"
related GUCs are together. Developers tend to add the new GUCs in
relevant areas.
So, -1 for reordering.
With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Piotr F. | 2021-04-21 08:31:20 | Re: BUG #16973: Backward compatibility: pg_restore: [archiver] unsupported version (1.14) in file header |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-04-21 02:46:16 | Re: BUG #16972: parameter parallel_leader_participation's category problem |