From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, yigongh@gmail.com,
        pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: The suggestion of reducing autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay should be
 documented
In-reply-to: 
 <CAKFQuwY1KMpxdfftdUWrcbnT4upE-sJSE8WDYhe8anNNSGjoUQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <158927918783.656.11973436145559215458@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <20200512214014.GD4666@momjian.us> <20200512214101.GA21408@momjian.us>
 <CAKFQuwY+RMFFM1Y44=2dpi_8TyTq_4yrLUG6VjWnzgQAhG6o7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200512224520.GE4666@momjian.us> <23940.1589325967@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20200512233056.GF4666@momjian.us>
 <CAKFQuwY1KMpxdfftdUWrcbnT4upE-sJSE8WDYhe8anNNSGjoUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 12 May 2020 16:49:37 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <31429.1589327947.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 19:59:07 -0400
Message-ID: <31430.1589327947@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> To be clear, because my cursory reading of the thread that was linked from
> the commit suggested that this specific situation was more "lets catch up
> to modern times", my position isn't that such documentation changes should
> be done as a rule, I am suggesting that we give a yes/no decision on this
> specific change (in advance of bike-shedding the wording).  IMO neither a
> blanket rule allowing or prohibiting such a change to the documentation
> makes sense given the rarity of the event.

Sure.  My point was just that changing the back-branch documentation would
require doing additional testing to verify that the proposed value is
an improvement in those branches.

			regards, tom lane