Tom Lane wrote: > Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't think it's a net win to get rid of this text, as it describes > > useful alternatives to the GUC variable: > > I was about to object to some other parts of the patch on the same > grounds, in particular the changes to ddl.sgml and maintenance.sgml, > and the first change in xfunc.sgml. In most of these cases, > currently-useful information is intertwined with the reference to the > old behavior. If you can't be bothered to rewrite to preserve all of > the information, then don't remove the text.
Advertising
I am working on Neils suggestion. I don't agree we need to preserve all information about very old releases. -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
