From: | "Wei Wang (Fujitsu)" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Fix the description of GUC "max_locks_per_transaction" and "max_pred_locks_per_transaction" in guc_table.c |
Date: | 2023-04-10 01:24:42 |
Message-ID: | OS3PR01MB6275F5812F60139C4E5D3EAD9E959@OS3PR01MB6275.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 1:32 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tues, Apr 4, 2023 at 23:48 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> I like the "per eligible process" wording, at least for guc_tables.c;
> >> or maybe it could be "per server process"? That would be more
> >> accurate and not much longer than what we have now.
>
> > Thanks both for sharing your opinions.
> > I agree that verbose descriptions make maintenance difficult.
> > For consistency, I unified the formulas in guc_tables.c and pg-doc into the same
> > suggested short formula. Attach the new patch.
>
> After studying this for awhile, I decided "server process" is probably
> the better term --- people will have some idea what that means, while
> "eligible process" is not a term we use anywhere else. Pushed with
> that change and some minor other wordsmithing.
Make sense to me
Thanks for pushing.
Regards,
Wang Wei
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-04-10 02:57:41 | Re: Direct I/O |
Previous Message | Fujii.Yuki@df.MitsubishiElectric.co.jp | 2023-04-10 01:18:37 | RE: Partial aggregates pushdown |