To: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
cc: "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: vacuum and routine maintenance docs 
In-reply-to: <1137626008.25500.90.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> 
References: <1137518049.25500.27.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
	<20060117224941.GI17896@pervasive.com>
	<1137538769.25500.49.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
	<20060118221951.GT17896@pervasive.com>
	<1137626008.25500.90.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
	message dated "Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:13:28 -0600"
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:55:07 -0500
Message-ID: <5713.1137632107@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com> writes:
> Well, I'm kind of tempted to rewrite the whole section.  I'd like to
> come up with some objectives of what we're trying to cover there, and
> basically start over with all the information that's there plus the
> other stuff on fsm and mvcc as it applies to vacuum, or link to it as
> needed.

> To me, the docs feel kind of like they've evolved over time, so the
> ordering and general layout feel klunky.  No slam on the folks who wrote
> them to start with, or updated them.  Just makes my tech docs training
> come out.

You're certainly right about the history of the docs, and I agree that a
ground-up rewrite is the only thing that would help much --- trying to
incorporate new separately-written material is just going to be "more of
the same", ISTM, no matter how good that material might be on its own.

Is it reasonable to try to make an outline of how you think the chapter
should go, or would that be premature without more discussion of
objectives?

			regards, tom lane