From: | Benoit Lobréau <benoit(dot)lobreau(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel workers stats in pg_stat_database |
Date: | 2024-11-12 14:56:11 |
Message-ID: | c58d805e-f55f-4f4f-a83a-25564400274d@dalibo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/12/24 15:05, Michael Banck wrote:
> I was wondering about the weird new column name workers_to_launch when I
> read the commit message - AFAICT this has been an internal term so far,
> and this is the first time we expose it to users?
>
> I personally find (parallel_)workers_planned/launched clearer from a
> user perspective, was it discussed that we need to follow the internal
> terms here? If so, I missed that discussion in this thread (and the
> other thread that lead to cf54a2c00).
>
>
> Michael
I initiallly called it like that but changed it to mirror the column
name added in pg_stat_statements for coherence sake. I prefer "planned"
but english is clearly not my strong suit and I assumed it meant that
the number of worker planned could change before execution. I just
checked in parallel.c and I don't think it's the case, could it be done
elsewhere ?
--
Benoit Lobréau
Consultant
http://dalibo.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-11-12 14:59:44 | Re: [PoC] XMLCast (SQL/XML X025) |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2024-11-12 14:45:07 | Re: Commit Timestamp and LSN Inversion issue |