"wangw.f...@fujitsu.com" <wangw.f...@fujitsu.com> writes:
> On Tues, Apr 4, 2023 at 23:48 PM Tom Lane <t...@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.
regards, tom lane
