Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this?

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun ago 23 12:40:32 -0400 2010:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > > Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of dom ago 22 12:51:47 -0400 2010:
> > >> Do you have a suggestion? Reorder the items?
> >
> > > I'd add another para before that one saying that this value "also"
> > > affects pg_clog truncation. I agree that putting pg_clog truncation as
> > > the first item here is not an improvement. For most people, having
> > > those pg_clog files there or not is going to be a wash, compared to data
> > > size.
> >
> > I was going to suggest that the point about pg_clog should be in a
> > separate paragraph *after* this one, since it seems like a secondary
> > issue. But anyway, I agree with putting this para back as it was and
> > talking about clog in a separate para.
>
> Sorry, yes, I was also thinking "after". I don't know what made me
> write "before" but it wasn't clarity of thought.

OK, I have attached a proposed patch to improve this. I moved the
pg_clog mention to a new paragraph and linked it to the reason the
default is relatively low.

Comments?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +