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. Robert Treat https://xzilla.net
