Re: [DOCS] bgwriter_lru_multiplier blurbs inconsistent - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [DOCS] bgwriter_lru_multiplier blurbs inconsistent
Date
Msg-id 200803061632.m26GW3L04395@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: bgwriter_lru_multiplier blurbs inconsistent  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:
> > On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think the main problem is the qualifying clause up front in a place
> >> of prominence.  Here's a V3 try
>
> > That one looks good to me.  These are small details but better to get it
> > right now.
>
> OK, committed.  Back to Alvaro's original concern: is the short
> description in guc.c all right, or can we improve that?

I have tried to improve the GUC description for
"bgwriter_lru_multiplier";  applied to CVS HEAD.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Index: src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.432
diff -c -c -r1.432 guc.c
*** src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c    30 Jan 2008 18:35:55 -0000    1.432
--- src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c    6 Mar 2008 16:22:44 -0000
***************
*** 1841,1847 ****

      {
          {"bgwriter_lru_multiplier", PGC_SIGHUP, RESOURCES,
!             gettext_noop("Background writer multiplier on average buffers to scan per round."),
              NULL
          },
          &bgwriter_lru_multiplier,
--- 1841,1847 ----

      {
          {"bgwriter_lru_multiplier", PGC_SIGHUP, RESOURCES,
!             gettext_noop("Multiple of the average buffer usage to free per round."),
              NULL
          },
          &bgwriter_lru_multiplier,

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Gevik Babakhani"
Date:
Subject: Re: Problem with site doc search
Next
From: Richard Huxton
Date:
Subject: Intended behaviour of SET search_path with SQL functions?