Hi,
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 09:33:48AM +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> FWIW, with the recent commits of the pg_stat_statements patch, you need a
> slight change in the patch I sent on this thread. You'll find a patch
> attached to do that. You need to apply it after a rebase to master.
>
> - if (estate->es_parallelized_workers_planned > 0) {
> + if (estate->es_parallel_workers_to_launch > 0) {
> pgstat_update_parallel_workers_stats(
> - (PgStat_Counter)
> estate->es_parallelized_workers_planned,
> - (PgStat_Counter)
> estate->es_parallelized_workers_launched);
> + (PgStat_Counter) estate->es_parallel_workers_to_launch,
> + (PgStat_Counter) estate->es_parallel_workers_launched);
I was wondering about the weird new column name workers_to_launch when I
read the commit message - AFAICT this has been an internal term so far,
and this is the first time we expose it to users?
I personally find (parallel_)workers_planned/launched clearer from a
user perspective, was it discussed that we need to follow the internal
terms here? If so, I missed that discussion in this thread (and the
other thread that lead to cf54a2c00).
Michael
