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 actually imply that "the autovacuum
daemon is disabled"? ISTM that plainly violates the principle of least
surprise -- it is almost the definition of what an entry in config.sgml
*should* include.
> though if you want to move one of those, we can do that.
So the change would be okay if we also removed one of the other mentions
in an unrelated section of the manual? I don't see the logic.
-Neil
