On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 1:32 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "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.
Make sense to me Thanks for pushing. Regards, Wang Wei
