On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Julien Rouhaud
<julien.rouh...@dalibo.com> wrote:
> On 29/06/2016 06:29, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Julien Rouhaud
>> <julien.rouh...@dalibo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for the help!
>>>
>>> PFA v6 which should fix all the issues mentioned.
>>
>> Couple of minor suggestions.
>>
>> - <xref linkend="guc-max-worker-processes">. Note that the requested
>> + <xref linkend="guc-max-worker-processes">, limited by
>> + <xref linked="guc-max-parallel-workers">. Note that the requested
>>
>> Typo.
>> /linked/linkend
>>
>
> Oops, fixed.
>
>> You can always find such mistakes by doing make check in doc/src/sgml/
>>
>
> I wasn't aware of that, it's really a nice thing to know, thanks!
>
>> + /*
>> + * We need a memory barrier here to make sure the above test doesn't get
>> + * reordered
>> + */
>> + pg_read_barrier();
>>
>> /memory barrier/read barrier
>>
>
> fixed
>
>> + if (max_parallel_workers == 0)
>> + {
>> + ereport(elevel,
>> + (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
>> + errmsg("background worker \"%s\": cannot request parallel worker if
>> no parallel worker allowed",
>>
>> " ..no parallel worker is allowed". 'is' seems to be missing.
>>
>
> fixed
>
Your patch looks good to me and is ready for a committer's look.
Notes for committer -
a. Verify if description of newly added Guc max_parallel_workers looks
okay to you, me and Julien are not in 100% agreement on that.
b. Comments might need some improvement.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
