Re: Logging parallel worker draught

Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>

From: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>

To: Benoit Lobréau <benoit.lobreau@dalibo.com>

Cc: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info>, Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>, "Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>

Date: 2024-12-30T15:06:01Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

I missed one more point earlier.

I don't think "failure" is a good name for the setting as it's
a bit too harsh. What we really have is a "shortage" of
workers.

Instead of
+    {"failure", LOG_PARALLEL_WORKERS_FAILURE, false},

what about?

 {"shortage", LOG_PARALLEL_WORKERS_SHORTAGE, false},

Regards,

Sami