On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > It seems to me that you need to think about the way to document things > properly first, with for example: > - Have a first documentation patch that explains what is a resource > manager for WAL, and what are the types available with a nice table. > - Add in your patch documentation to explain what are the benefits of > using this facility, the main purpose is testing, but there are also > mention upthread about users that would like to get that into > production, assuming that the overhead is minimal.
So, I don't think that this patch should be required to document all of the currently-undocumented stuff that somebody might want to know that it is related to this patch. It should be enough to documented the patch itself. One paragraph in config.sgml in the usual format should be fine. Maybe two paragraphs. We do need to list the resource managers, but that can just be something like this: The default value of for this setting is <literal>off</>. To check all records written to the write-ahead log, set this parameter to <literal>all</literal>. To check only same records, specify a comma-separated list of resource managers. The resource managers which are currently supported are <literal>heap</>, <literal>btree</>, <literal>hash</>, BLAH, and BLAH. If somebody wants to write some user-facing documentation of the write-ahead log format, great. That could certainly be very helpful for people who are running pg_xlogdump. But I don't think that stuff goes in this patch. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers