Hi,
On January 31, 2025 5:22:43 PM EST, Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net> wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 10:25 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2025-01-30 21:24:05 -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > On January 30, 2025 8:55:36 PM EST, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> > >Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> > >> While working on polishing the AIO patchset, I was trying to figure out where
>> > >> to fit the new GUCs. So far I had a new "top-level" #--- style section named
>> > >> "WIP AIO GUC docs" which I suspect you all won't let me get away with.
>> > >> There is an existing (sub-)section which already has a few related GUCs and
>> > >> could fit AIO related ones.
>> > >
>> > >I think the normal theory for postgresql.conf.sample is that it should
>> > >match the organization of config.sgml. What are you planning there?
>> >
>> > Pretty much the same. I.e. I'm thinking that the worker stuff should be it's
>> > own subsection and that the existing IO parameters should be moved to either
>> > a new subsection or a new top level section. But I'm wondering how others
>> > think it should be structured...
>>
>> Here are draft changes for the minimal thing I think we should do.
>>
>> I don't really know what to do about the "IO" abbreviation. The other sections
>> un-abbreviate abbreviations, but I suspect that Input/Output will be less
>> informative than IO to most...
>>
>> I still wonder if we instead ought to create a top-level "IO" section instead
>> of leaving it under "Resource Usage". How many IOs we combine, how
>> aggressively we flush unflushed data, etc only kinda fits into the resource
>> usage category.
>>
>
>+1 from me, though I did pause on whether it should be called
>"background workers" rather than "worker processes", but I think this
>is the right direction.
+1 for the patch as-is, or my suggestion to make it a top level section?
Greetings,
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
