Hi, On January 31, 2025 5:22:43 PM EST, Robert Treat <r...@xzilla.net> wrote: >On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 10:25 AM Andres Freund <and...@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 <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> > >Andres Freund <and...@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.
