Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of dom ago 22 12:51:47 -0400 2010:
>> Do you have a suggestion? Reorder the items?
> I'd add another para before that one saying that this value "also"
> affects pg_clog truncation. I agree that putting pg_clog truncation as
> the first item here is not an improvement. For most people, having
> those pg_clog files there or not is going to be a wash, compared to data
> size.
I was going to suggest that the point about pg_clog should be in a
separate paragraph *after* this one, since it seems like a secondary
issue. But anyway, I agree with putting this para back as it was and
talking about clog in a separate para.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
