On 2021-Oct-12, Pavel Luzanov wrote: > 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.
Yeah, this one is new as of commit 1e55e7d1755c; ISTM we should just fix it. -- Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "La persona que no quería pecar / estaba obligada a sentarse en duras y empinadas sillas / desprovistas, por cierto de blandos atenuantes" (Patricio Vogel)
