On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > After looking at that a bit, I'm strongly tempted to just take out > the last two sentences of the para, reducing it to the advice concerning > maintenance_work_mem. That seems sufficient to describe the current > behavior, and given our awful track record about maintaining this > documentation, I'm not sure that going into more detail is really > a good idea. Comments?
+1 -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
