On Sunday, May 8, 2016, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > [ I think you meant to attach this to the other thread, but anyway... ]
This is where the link to the online version was; reading the sgml and/or compiling ends up being a bit more than I wanted to do to review these. > > "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> writes: > > "...replacement_sort_tuples, which see for further details." needs > > rewording. > > Hmm, "which see" is perfectly good English to my knowledge, and I'm not > sure that other possible ways of wording this would be less awkward. > Removing it doesn't seem like a bad choice...The user should realize the relevant preceding linked guc is where they should look for more details - pointing it out to them seems verbose. But the meaning is clear regardless of familiarity. > > Is it worth mentioning the deprecation of exclusive backups in the notes > > introducing non-exclusive ones? > > It's not clear to me that we're actually deprecating them; there did not > seem to be consensus on that. > Then section 24.3.3 needs fixing. The second paragraph explicitly states it is deprecated. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/continuous-archiving.html David J.
