On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 11:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Alexander Korotkov
> <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> So, do we demote that message to a DEBUG1? Or do we make it more clear
> >> what the authors of a specific picksplit are supposed to do to avoid
> >> that problem? Or am I misunderstanding something?
> >
> >
> > +1 for demote message to DEBUG1. I think it shouldn't be so noisy, it just
> > indicates something could be improved.
> > Also I think we defenitely need to document secondary split. Now it's no
> > chances to understand without reverse engeneering it from code.
>
> I'm happy to go demote the message if we have consensus on that, but
> somebody else is going to need to provide the doc patch. Any takers?
I was planning to do that, but it won't be for a few days at least. If
someone else wants to do it sooner, feel free.
Regards,Jeff Davis
