On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 4:15 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 09:15:23AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > If we arrange only the "Asynchronous Behaviour" subsection in
> > alphabetical order, I think the order may not be maintained in case of
> > new GUCs that may get added there. Because all the other subsections
> > are unordered and there's no note of maintaining the order as such.
> > And, it looks like the relevant GUCs are grouped for better
> > readability. For instance, all "parallelism", "io_concurrency", "jit_"
> > related GUCs are together. Developers tend to add the new GUCs in
> > relevant areas.
>
> That's up to the committers adding them to be careful, but I of course
> agree that the context is important. IMV, we can do a slightly better
> organization in "Asynchronous Behaviour". First, backend_flush_after
> is independent, and could just be first.
>
> parallel_leader_participation can also be moved after
> max_parallel_workers without impacting the readability nor impacting
> the set of parallel-ish parameters grouped together.
+1. Attached v2.
With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
