Hi, On 2025-01-31 18:21:54 -0500, Andres Freund wrote: > 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?
I pushed the patch as I had it, save for replacing IO with I/O where appropriate. If we want to go for a larger restructuring in the future, this won't make it harder, and perhaps even a little simpler. Greetings, Andres Freund
