Re: Fix the description of GUC "max_locks_per_transaction" and "max_pred_locks_per_transaction" in guc_table.c - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Fix the description of GUC "max_locks_per_transaction" and "max_pred_locks_per_transaction" in guc_table.c
Date
Msg-id 3049104.1680888742@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to 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>)
Responses 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
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Melanie Plageman
Date:
Subject: Re: Track IO times in pg_stat_io
Next
From: Emre Hasegeli
Date:
Subject: Unnecessary confirm work on logical replication