On 02.07.18 10:38, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 29 Jun 2018, at 18:44, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
>> +1 for shortening it as proposed by Peter. The existing arrangement
>> made sense when it was first written, when there were only about three
>> individual options IIRC. Now it's just confusing, especially since you
>> can't tell very easily whether any of the individual options were
>> intentionally omitted from the list. It will not get better with
>> more options, either.
>
> Marking this "Waiting for Author” awaiting an update version expanding with the
> above comment.
I ended up rewriting that whole section a bit to give it more structure.
I included all the points discussed in this thread.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
