On 2015-09-24 12:39:54 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2015-09-24 10:37:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > > > Should this patch not have also touched the per-table limits in > > > reloptions.c? > > > > Hm. I guess that'd make sense. It's not really related to the goal of > > making it realistic to test multixact/clog truncation, but it's less > > confusing if consistent. > > Yeah, agreed.
Pushed. I actually noticed that the lower limit reloption multixact_freeze_max_age in reloptions was wrong independent of recent commits. > > > and I found places in create_table.sgml that claim these variables can be > > > set to zero. You didn't break that with this patch, but it's still wrong. > > > > Seems to have been "broken" back in 834a6da4f7 - the old table based > > approach doesn't seem to have imposed lower limits. I'm not really sure > > whether making the limits consistent and updating the docs or removing > > them alltogether is the better approach. > > I'm surprised the error has survived this long. Without checking I > can't say what's the best solution either, but I would opt for > documenting the limits we have -- if we want to change them back to 0 I > say that merits its own discussion. How about simply removing that sentence? I.e. something like <literal>autovacuum_freeze_max_age</> larger than the system-wide setting - (it can only be set smaller). Note that while you can set - <literal>autovacuum_freeze_max_age</> very small, or even zero, this is - usually unwise since it will force frequent vacuuming. + (it can only be set smaller). </para> Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers