| From: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ian Barwick <ian(dot)barwick(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: doc: pg_trgm missing description for GUC "pg_trgm.strict_word_similarity_threshold" |
| Date: | 2019-06-08 17:17:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfduzDf2SZP2mLmthgOFGzujVBe3MT0kbQ-ivFuRuqHa5Kg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:02 PM Ian Barwick <ian(dot)barwick(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 6/7/19 9:00 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 03:44:14PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Or is that not worth bothering except on HEAD? Thoughts?
>
> Personally I don't think it's that critical, but not bothered either way.
> Presumably no-one has complained so far anyway (I only chanced upon the missing
> GUC description because I was poking about looking for examples of custom
> GUC handling...)
I think it worth maintaining consistent documentation and GUC
descriptions in back branches. So, I'm +1 for backpatching.
I'm going to commit all 3 patches (documentation, GUC description,
documentation indentation) on no objections.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2019-06-08 20:29:17 | Re: Should we warn against using too many partitions? |
| Previous Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2019-06-08 16:45:55 | Re: pg_basebackup failure after setting default_table_access_method option |