| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [doc] remove reference to pg_dump pre-8.1 switch behaviour |
| Date: | 2020-12-01 07:35:49 |
| Message-ID: | X8XyVaSjh4+7MZBP@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 03:46:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> > So this comes down to 5 items, as per the attached. Thoughts?
>
> These items look fine to me, except this bit seems a bit awkward:
>
> + Note that the delayed indexing technique used for <acronym>GIN</acronym>
> + (see <xref linkend="gin-fast-update"/> for details) makes this advice
> + less necessary, but for very large updates it may still be best to
> + drop and recreate the index.
>
> Less necessary than what? Maybe instead write
>
> When fastupdate is enabled (see ...), the penalty is much less than
> when it is not. But for very large updates it may still be best to
> drop and recreate the index.
Thanks, that's indeed better. I used your wording, looked at that
again, and applied that.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Nancarrow | 2020-12-01 08:09:10 | Re: Libpq support to connect to standby server as priority |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-12-01 07:32:20 | Re: autovac issue with large number of tables |