Re: BUG #16972: parameter parallel_leader_participation's category problem

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
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 02:46:16
Message-ID: YH+R+HqLHDyrH1ng@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 01:38:48PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> I think it comes under the category "Resource Usage / Asynchronous
> Behavior", so what pg_settings showing is correct. ISTM that we need
> to correct the docs, attached a patch for that.

This got introduced in e5253fd. My first impression was that this
had better be a developer option, but Thomas is mentioning an extra
reason why this category may not be a good fit:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEepm=3G1-SKd2qKN-3uen=Xvyi-OxAVg9RAwqWDH-KZWuGqNA@mail.gmail.com

And Robert has moved that at the end to its GUC section without
addressing the docs:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+Tgmoa=AxuLKo2f1AKwLmvFoo3rr3j+SYHaJ5GVyx1PhhOJ0Q@mail.gmail.com

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.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bharath Rupireddy 2021-04-21 03:45:23 Re: BUG #16972: parameter parallel_leader_participation's category problem
Previous Message Andres Freund 2021-04-20 22:52:28 Re: BUG #16971: Incompatible datalayout errors with llvmjit