Re: Hash indexes and effective_cache_size in CREATE INDEX documentation

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hash indexes and effective_cache_size in CREATE INDEX documentation
Date: 2016-07-31 17:06:44
Message-ID: CAM3SWZRjyBhHnAVnHA1R6cJw7i-s++FXc=rSogK+=N+tQoVp-w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> After looking at that a bit, I'm strongly tempted to just take out
> the last two sentences of the para, reducing it to the advice concerning
> maintenance_work_mem. That seems sufficient to describe the current
> behavior, and given our awful track record about maintaining this
> documentation, I'm not sure that going into more detail is really
> a good idea. Comments?

+1

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-07-31 20:28:31 Broken order-of-operations in parallel query latch manipulation
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-07-31 17:05:56 Re: Hash indexes and effective_cache_size in CREATE INDEX documentation