Re: Per-table log_autovacuum_min_duration is actually documented - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Per-table log_autovacuum_min_duration is actually documented
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqRh_8688pkKYQipzJZE3gow9YPhF7a1u=nq_=JMEciQew@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Per-table log_autovacuum_min_duration is actually documented  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Per-table log_autovacuum_min_duration is actually documented  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> I recall that we had some talks about grouping all the relopts into a
>> single documentation section, perhaps not having one is at the origin
>> of the confusion?
>
> I think you're remembering this:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150402205713.GB22175@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org

Right. Thanks. Do you think we'd still want a patch to improve that?
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thom Brown
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel Seq Scan
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: pageinspect patch, for showing tuple data