Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I think the main problem is the qualifying clause up front in a place > >> of prominence. Here's a V3 try > > > That one looks good to me. These are small details but better to get it > > right now. > > OK, committed. Back to Alvaro's original concern: is the short > description in guc.c all right, or can we improve that?
I have tried to improve the GUC description for "bgwriter_lru_multiplier"; applied to CVS HEAD. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Index: src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c,v retrieving revision 1.432 diff -c -c -r1.432 guc.c *** src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c 30 Jan 2008 18:35:55 -0000 1.432 --- src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c 6 Mar 2008 16:22:44 -0000 *************** *** 1841,1847 **** { {"bgwriter_lru_multiplier", PGC_SIGHUP, RESOURCES, ! gettext_noop("Background writer multiplier on average buffers to scan per round."), NULL }, &bgwriter_lru_multiplier, --- 1841,1847 ---- { {"bgwriter_lru_multiplier", PGC_SIGHUP, RESOURCES, ! gettext_noop("Multiple of the average buffer usage to free per round."), NULL }, &bgwriter_lru_multiplier,
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://mail.postgresql.org/mj/mj_wwwusr?domain=postgresql.org&extra=pgsql-hackers