Re: Per-table log_autovacuum_min_duration is actually documented

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Per-table log_autovacuum_min_duration is actually documented
Date: 2015-11-12 00:01:53
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRh_8688pkKYQipzJZE3gow9YPhF7a1u=nq_=JMEciQew@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> I recall that we had some talks about grouping all the relopts into a
>> single documentation section, perhaps not having one is at the origin
>> of the confusion?
>
> I think you're remembering this:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150402205713.GB22175@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org

Right. Thanks. Do you think we'd still want a patch to improve that?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2015-11-12 00:04:18 Re: pageinspect patch, for showing tuple data
Previous Message Thom Brown 2015-11-11 23:57:09 Re: Parallel Seq Scan