Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 14:46:23 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Pavel Luzanov <p.luzanov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>,
	pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org, Peter G <pg@bowt.ie>
Subject: Re: Correction for vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age
Message-ID: <202110121746.guls5u4g4lye@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <59fcaa26-32ce-5c74-9d63-c509759f4d66@postgrespro.ru>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202110121746.guls5u4g4lye%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-Oct-12, Pavel Luzanov wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> > > When trying to make a link to the new vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age parameter,
> > > I found the wrong ID for this guc (missed word vacuum).
> > > Please consider this patch for a fix.
> > It is good to be consistent, but the name of the link is not essential, is it?
> > Changing it might break existing outside links.
> 
> Not essential, it's true. I haven't seen any rules in the documentation
> on forming links for guc.
> 
> But how many external links could have been made since September 30?
> And how many times in the future will people encounter inconsistency
> in constructing a link to this parameter?
> 
> It seems to me that it's better to fix it.

Yeah, this one is new as of commit 1e55e7d1755c; ISTM we should just fix it.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera              Valdivia, Chile  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La persona que no quería pecar / estaba obligada a sentarse
 en duras y empinadas sillas    / desprovistas, por cierto
 de blandos atenuantes"                          (Patricio Vogel)