| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, yigongh(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: The suggestion of reducing autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay should be documented |
| Date: | 2020-05-12 23:59:07 |
| Message-ID: | 31430.1589327947@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> To be clear, because my cursory reading of the thread that was linked from
> the commit suggested that this specific situation was more "lets catch up
> to modern times", my position isn't that such documentation changes should
> be done as a rule, I am suggesting that we give a yes/no decision on this
> specific change (in advance of bike-shedding the wording). IMO neither a
> blanket rule allowing or prohibiting such a change to the documentation
> makes sense given the rarity of the event.
Sure. My point was just that changing the back-branch documentation would
require doing additional testing to verify that the proposed value is
an improvement in those branches.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2020-05-13 00:17:08 | Re: The suggestion of reducing autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay should be documented |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2020-05-12 23:49:37 | Re: The suggestion of reducing autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay should be documented |