From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: disabling log_rotation_age feature.
In-reply-to: 
 <CAKFQuwayss-PaqZ9+vCfc5h-WUKRtf7Lkn20THfWssmv1qa5eA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53992FF8.2060702@po.ntts.co.jp>
 <CAHGQGwEPVu2T39Zddvh-CubJ9Ghyz4Gf1-JGqqvu5Ja7m5BJ7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <23802.1402584095@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAKFQuwayss-PaqZ9+vCfc5h-WUKRtf7Lkn20THfWssmv1qa5eA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
 message dated "Thu, 12 Jun 2014 08:35:16 -0700"
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:00:00 -0400
Message-ID: <26093.1402588800@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane-2 [via PostgreSQL] <
> ml-node+s1045698n5807014h58@n5.nabble.com> wrote:
>> I wonder if we should round fractions up instead of down in that logic?
>> It might be less surprising for those GUCs where zero is special, and
>> it seems like about a wash for most others.

> ​I think documenting the behavior better,

I don't.  If you have to explain it, it probably needs improvement.

> Green field maybe I'd say yes but given that the new behavior could turn
> features on that are currently off it doesn't seem to be beneficial enough
> to warrant changing.

I don't think that argument holds water either.  We routinely make
changes that break old postgresql.conf files.  Not in minor updates
of course, but none of this is material for back-patching.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs