On Sunday, May 8, 2016, Tom Lane <
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
[ I think you meant to attach this to the other thread, but anyway... ]
This is where the link to the online version was; reading the sgml and/or compiling ends up being a bit more than I wanted to do to review these.
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> "...replacement_sort_tuples, which see for further details." needs
> rewording.
Hmm, "which see" is perfectly good English to my knowledge, and I'm not
sure that other possible ways of wording this would be less awkward.
Removing it doesn't seem like a bad choice...The user should realize the relevant preceding linked guc is where they should look for more details - pointing it out to them seems verbose. But the meaning is clear regardless of familiarity.
> Is it worth mentioning the deprecation of exclusive backups in the notes
> introducing non-exclusive ones?
It's not clear to me that we're actually deprecating them; there did not
seem to be consensus on that.
Then section 24.3.3 needs fixing. The second paragraph explicitly states it is deprecated.
David J.
