On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 8:05 PM James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 6:51 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 2020-Nov-30, James Coleman wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 4:53 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2020-Sep-30, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > > > Yeah, I think it might be more sensible to document this in
> > > > maintenance.sgml, as part of the paragraph that discusses removing
> > > > tuples "to save space". But making it inline with the rest of the flow,
> > > > it seems to distract from higher-level considerations, so I suggest to
> > > > make it a footnote instead.
> > >
> > > I have mixed feelings about wholesale moving it; users aren't likely
> > > to read the vacuum doc when considering how running CIC might impact
> > > their system, though I do understand why it otherwise fits there.
> >
> > Makes sense. ISTM that if we want to have a cautionary blurb CIC docs,
> > it should go in REINDEX CONCURRENTLY as well.
>
> Agreed. Or, alternatively, a blurb something like "Please note how CIC
> interacts with VACUUM <link>...", and then the primary language in
> maintenance.sgml. That would have the benefit of maintaining the core
> language in only one place.
Any thoughts on this?
James
