On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 1:32 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "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.
Make sense to me
Thanks for pushing.
Regards,
Wang Wei
