From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
        Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Consolidate docs for vacuum-related GUCs in new subsection
In-reply-to: <813EFE3C-1901-4B6D-A1EE-678A395A253B@yesql.se>
References: <202501110902.5banlseavz7c@alvherre.pgsql>
 <813EFE3C-1901-4B6D-A1EE-678A395A253B@yesql.se>
Comments: In-reply-to Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
	message dated "Sun, 12 Jan 2025 20:07:21 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <347095.1736709667.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 14:21:07 -0500
Message-ID: <347096.1736709667@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/347096.1736709667%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
> On 11 Jan 2025, at 10:02, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote=
:
>> and the GUC grouping in guc_tables.c/h?

> I don't know what our policy around this is, and maybe the backpatching =
hazard
> isn't too bad here, but it doesn't entirely seem worth the churn.

I think the entire point of that categorization is to line up with the
docs, so our policy should be to fix this.

			regards, tom lane