Re: [PATCHES] [DOCS] Autovacuum and XID wraparound

2007-05-15 Thread Neil Conway
On Tue, 2007-15-05 at 09:07 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I agree, the note should be added there (but it should be a short one > and refer the reader someplace else for more complete details). I've applied the attached patch to HEAD and REL8_2_STABLE. -Neil Index: doc/src/sgml/config.sgml

Re: [PATCHES] [DOCS] Autovacuum and XID wraparound

2007-05-15 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Neil Conway wrote: > On Mon, 2007-14-05 at 16:22 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I agree with Tom. I don't think the current behavior is a major issue > > for users for it to be mentioned more than it already is > > Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't modify config.sgml to note > that "au

Re: [PATCHES] [DOCS] Autovacuum and XID wraparound

2007-05-14 Thread Neil Conway
On Mon, 2007-14-05 at 16:22 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I agree with Tom. I don't think the current behavior is a major issue > for users for it to be mentioned more than it already is Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't modify config.sgml to note that "autovacuum = off" does not actual

Re: [DOCS] Autovacuum and XID wraparound

2007-05-14 Thread Bruce Momjian
David Fetter wrote: > On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 10:06:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Per Neil Conway, here's some doc patches re: the autovacuum > > > daemon's behavior. Should this be back-patched to 8.2x? > > > > This fact is already documented in a

Re: [PATCHES] [DOCS] Autovacuum and XID wraparound

2007-05-13 Thread Neil Conway
On Sun, 2007-13-05 at 22:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > This fact is already documented in at least three places; do we really > need two more? I think we need to at least modify the documentation for the autovacuum GUC parameter, which currently states only that it "controls whether the server shoul

Re: [DOCS] Autovacuum and XID wraparound

2007-05-13 Thread David Fetter
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 10:06:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Per Neil Conway, here's some doc patches re: the autovacuum > > daemon's behavior. Should this be back-patched to 8.2x? > > This fact is already documented in at least three places; do we > re

Re: [DOCS] Autovacuum and XID wraparound

2007-05-13 Thread Tom Lane
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Per Neil Conway, here's some doc patches re: the autovacuum daemon's > behavior. Should this be back-patched to 8.2x? This fact is already documented in at least three places; do we really need two more? The proposed addition to postgresql.conf seems pa

[DOCS] Autovacuum and XID wraparound

2007-05-13 Thread David Fetter
Folks, Per Neil Conway, here's some doc patches re: the autovacuum daemon's behavior. Should this be back-patched to 8.2x? Cheers, D -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to