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 Wei Wang (Fujitsu)
Subject RE: Fix the description of GUC "max_locks_per_transaction" and "max_pred_locks_per_transaction" in guc_table.c
Date
Msg-id OS3PR01MB6275F5812F60139C4E5D3EAD9E959@OS3PR01MB6275.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
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  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Fujii.Yuki@df.MitsubishiElectric.co.jp"
Date:
Subject: RE: Partial aggregates pushdown
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Direct I/O