Re: Fix the description of GUC "max_locks_per_transaction" and "max_pred_locks_per_transaction" in guc_table.c
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Fix the description of GUC "max_locks_per_transaction" and "max_pred_locks_per_transaction" in guc_table.c |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 3049104.1680888742@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | RE: Fix the description of GUC "max_locks_per_transaction" and "max_pred_locks_per_transaction" in guc_table.c ("wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com" <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com>) |
| Ответы |
RE: Fix the description of GUC "max_locks_per_transaction" and "max_pred_locks_per_transaction" in guc_table.c
Re: Fix the description of GUC "max_locks_per_transaction" and "max_pred_locks_per_transaction" in guc_table.c |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
"wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com" <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com> writes:
> On Tues, Apr 4, 2023 at 23:48 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: