| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Option to not use ringbuffer in VACUUM, using it in failsafe mode |
| Date: | 2023-04-18 05:46:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvqCMihULF5bWomSG56d=H9+LA4M8Cp1QKJAWghoHUsMhA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 at 09:21, Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Are we still thinking that reordering the VACUUM (and ANALYZE) options
> makes sense. And, if so, should it be alphabetical within parameter
> category? That is, all actual parameters (e.g. FULL and FREEZE) are
> alphabetically organized first followed by all parameter types (e.g.
> boolean and size) alphabetically listed?
I've opened a thread for that [1].
David
[1] https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvo1eWbt5PVpk0G=yCbBNgLU7KaRP6dCBHpNbFaBjyGyQA@mail.gmail.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-04-18 06:53:17 | Re: Should we put command options in alphabetical order in the doc? |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2023-04-18 05:44:39 | Should we put command options in alphabetical order in the doc? |