On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 04:13, Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> > > I agree with the sentiment of the third doc change, but your patch > removes > > the mention of n_distinct, which isn't appropriate. > > I think it's correct to remove n_distinct there, as it's documented > previously, > since e5550d5f. That's a per-attribute option (not storage) and can't be > specified there. > OK, then agreed. > The second change in your patch alters the meaning of the sentence in a > way > > that is counter to the first change. The name of these parameters is > > "Storage Parameters" (in various places); I might agree with describing > > them in text as "storage or planner parameters", but if you do that you > > can't then just refer to "storage parameters" later, because if you do it > > implies that planner parameters operate differently to storage > parameters, > > which they don't. > > The 2nd change is: > > for details on the available parameters. Note that the table > contents > - will not be modified immediately by this command; depending on the > + will not be modified immediately by setting its storage parameters; > depending on the > parameter you might need to rewrite the table to get the desired > effects. > > I deliberately qualified that as referring only to "storage params" rather > than > "this command", since planner params never "modify the table contents". > Possibly other instances in the document (and createtable) should be > changed > for consistency. > Yes, but it's not a correction, just a different preference of wording. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Solutions for the Enterprise