| From: | Pavel Luzanov <p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Correction for vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age |
| Date: | 2021-10-12 08:29:27 |
| Message-ID: | 59fcaa26-32ce-5c74-9d63-c509759f4d66@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Hello,
>> When trying to make a link to the new vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age parameter,
>> I found the wrong ID for this guc (missed word vacuum).
>> Please consider this patch for a fix.
> It is good to be consistent, but the name of the link is not essential, is it?
> Changing it might break existing outside links.
Not essential, it's true. I haven't seen any rules in the documentation
on forming links for guc.
But how many external links could have been made since September 30?
And how many times in the future will people encounter inconsistency
in constructing a link to this parameter?
It seems to me that it's better to fix it.
But right now I need a link to this parameter for an article,
and I want to see if there's a chance to change the reference to the
familiar one
or use the current one.
Pavel Luzanov
Postgres Professional: https://postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-10-12 17:46:23 | Re: Correction for vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2021-10-12 06:45:23 | Re: Correction for vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age |