On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> After looking at that a bit, I'm strongly tempted to just take out
> the last two sentences of the para, reducing it to the advice concerning
> maintenance_work_mem.  That seems sufficient to describe the current
> behavior, and given our awful track record about maintaining this
> documentation, I'm not sure that going into more detail is really
> a good idea.  Comments?


Peter Geoghegan

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to