| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: worker_spi example BGW code GUC tweak |
| Date: | 2017-12-18 00:32:47 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob74JYb0d0+WayhvH1RKqVyP2BvMgHpJopjgWStYxPzEA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> wrote:
> Would this sample code make an even better teaching example if it
> used the existing GUC way to declare that worker_spi.naptime is
> in units of seconds?
>
> Or does it not do that for some reason I've overlooked?
Making it use GUC_UNIT_S seems like a good idea to me, but removing
the mention of seconds from the description doesn't seem like a good
idea to me.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-12-18 00:35:38 | Re: es_query_dsa is broken |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-12-18 00:29:13 | Re: pg_(total_)relation_size and partitioned tables |