| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Jingtang Zhang <mrdrivingduck(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Possible inaccurate description of wal_compression in docs |
| Date: | 2025-08-12 04:41:40 |
| Message-ID: | aJrGBIoNyYiO-p8w@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 06:59:55PM +0300, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> FPWs are used here and there in a lot of places, like "FPI for
> hint". And indexes are build using FPI for many years, it did not
> start with 17...
> This list is not exhaustive in any case, so I agree that formulation
> should not be very strict.
Perhaps, yes, the formulation used in this paragraph could be a bit
more evasive. What we do not want is to keep a wording that would
require more maintenance each time the internals of the backend are
changed, so adding an extra "like" may be OK.
Do any of you have a specific wording in mind?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2025-08-12 04:57:45 | Re: GB18030-2022 Support in PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Japin Li | 2025-08-12 03:48:20 | Re: [WIP]Vertical Clustered Index (columnar store extension) - take2 |