Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.187])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB532E345B;
	Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:34:05 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 92107-02-2; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:33:58 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E387A2E3F29;
	Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:29:51 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m0L3TmEQ019883;
	Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:29:48 -0500 (EST)
To: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org,
	Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] bgwriter_lru_multiplier blurbs inconsistent 
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0801202206320.29293@westnet.com> 
References: <20080120195519.GD22740@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0801201505250.17332@westnet.com>
	<13942.1200866722@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0801202206320.29293@westnet.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
	message dated "Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:07:52 -0500"
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:29:48 -0500
Message-ID: <19882.1200886188@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200801/25
X-Sequence-Number: 4754

Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think the main problem is the qualifying clause up front in a place
>> of prominence.  Here's a V3 try

> That one looks good to me.  These are small details but better to get it 
> right now.

OK, committed.  Back to Alvaro's original concern: is the short
description in guc.c all right, or can we improve that?

			regards, tom lane