On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 6:00 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 10 Jan 2025, at 23:09, Melanie Plageman
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 5:05 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >>
> >> I think this is a really good restructuring which will make life easier
> >> for our
> >> users. Some
> On 10 Jan 2025, at 23:09, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 5:05 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>
>> I think this is a really good restructuring which will make life easier for
>> our
>> users. Some of the comments below are on wording which wasn't introduced in
>> this patch
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 5:05 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> I think this is a really good restructuring which will make life easier for
> our
> users. Some of the comments below are on wording which wasn't introduced in
> this patch, but which I hadn't thought about before, so feel free to ignor
> On 9 Jan 2025, at 02:45, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> Attached is v2 (required a rebase).
I think this is a really good restructuring which will make life easier for our
users. Some of the comments below are on wording which wasn't introduced in
this patch, but which I hadn't thought about befor
On 09.01.25 02:45, Melanie Plageman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 8:39 AM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 07.01.25 18:31, Melanie Plageman wrote:
Oh, one thing I forgot to say. Though I increased the indentation of
some of the subsections that I moved, I didn't rewrap the lines
because they were
> On 9 Jan 2025, at 02:30, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 6:35 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>
>>> On 7 Jan 2025, at 21:14, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> I might be wrong, but I had the idea that our docs website has a
>>> capability to provide such redirects. You'd probably need
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 8:39 AM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 07.01.25 18:31, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> >
> > Oh, one thing I forgot to say. Though I increased the indentation of
> > some of the subsections that I moved, I didn't rewrap the lines
> > because they were already not wrapped to 78. I
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 6:35 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> > On 7 Jan 2025, at 21:14, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > I might be wrong, but I had the idea that our docs website has a
> > capability to provide such redirects. You'd probably need to ask
> > about that on the pgsql-www list, unless somebody
On 07.01.25 18:31, Melanie Plageman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 12:15 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
Cool, I've attached a patch to do this. I left a few of the GUCs under
Resource Consumption (like autovacuum_work_mem and
vacuum_buffer_usage_limit) where they are because it seemed
appropriate.
> On 7 Jan 2025, at 21:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> I might be wrong, but I had the idea that our docs website has a
> capability to provide such redirects. You'd probably need to ask
> about that on the pgsql-www list, unless somebody who knows the
> answer notices this thread.
There is functionality
Nathan Bossart writes:
> I haven't reviewed the patch in depth, but I think it's worth considering
> whether this change will break any links that work in one version but break
> if you change the version number. I believe appendix-obsolete.sgml is
> designed to help with that a bit, but I've had
Melanie Plageman writes:
>> This is my first docs patch that introduces new sections and such, so
>> I'm not sure I got the indentation 100% correct (I, of course, tried
>> to follow conventions).
There really isn't much convention there :-(. The amount of
indentation used varies wildly across d
On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 12:15:17PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> This is my first docs patch that introduces new sections and such, so
> I'm not sure I got the indentation 100% correct (I, of course, tried
> to follow conventions).
I haven't reviewed the patch in depth, but I think it's worth c
On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 12:15 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
>
> Cool, I've attached a patch to do this. I left a few of the GUCs under
> Resource Consumption (like autovacuum_work_mem and
> vacuum_buffer_usage_limit) where they are because it seemed
> appropriate.
>
> This is my first docs patch that
On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 8:26 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Melanie Plageman writes:
> > I was reviewing all the vacuum related GUCs, and I noticed that they
> > fall into three main subsections of Chapter 19 (Server Configuration)
> > in the docs [1]: Automatic Vacuuming [2], Resource Consumption [3],
>
Melanie Plageman writes:
> I was reviewing all the vacuum related GUCs, and I noticed that they
> fall into three main subsections of Chapter 19 (Server Configuration)
> in the docs [1]: Automatic Vacuuming [2], Resource Consumption [3],
> and Client Connection Defaults [4]. The last one I find pr
I was reviewing all the vacuum related GUCs, and I noticed that they
fall into three main subsections of Chapter 19 (Server Configuration)
in the docs [1]: Automatic Vacuuming [2], Resource Consumption [3],
and Client Connection Defaults [4]. The last one I find pretty
confusing.
vacuum_freeze_min
17 matches
Mail list logo
