Re: Misleading comment about single_copy, and some bikeshedding - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Misleading comment about single_copy, and some bikeshedding
Date
Msg-id 13940.1561390441@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Misleading comment about single_copy, and some bikeshedding  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> Hmm.  I wonder if we should rename force_parallel_mode to
> force_gather_node in v13.  The current name has always seemed slightly
> misleading to me; it sounds like some kind of turbo boost button but
> really it's a developer-only test mode.  Also, does it belong under
> DEVELOPER_OPTIONS instead of QUERY_TUNING_OTHER?  I'm also wondering
> if the variable single_copy would be better named
> no_leader_participation or single_participant.  I find "copy" a
> slightly strange way to refer to the number of copies *allowed to
> run*, but maybe that's just me.

FWIW, I agree 100% that these names are opaque.  I don't know if your
suggestions are the best we can do, but they each seem like improvements.
And yes, force_parallel_mode should be under DEVELOPER_OPTIONS; it's a
performance-losing test option.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Do we need to do better for pg_ctl timeouts?