Subject: Re: Correction for vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
References: <c71a3cfc-a267-3d9f-1b44-fbd668d0ab10@postgrespro.ru>
 <056c2150c6aed337c3ea7dfe3c57cb74e0399b54.camel@cybertec.at>
From: Pavel Luzanov <p.luzanov@postgrespro.ru>
Message-ID: <59fcaa26-32ce-5c74-9d63-c509759f4d66@postgrespro.ru>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 11:29:27 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <056c2150c6aed337c3ea7dfe3c57cb74e0399b54.camel@cybertec.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/59fcaa26-32ce-5c74-9d63-c509759f4d66%40postgrespro.ru>
Precedence: bulk

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.

But right now I need a link to this parameter for an article,
and I want to see if there's a chance to change the reference to the 
familiar one
or use the current one.

Pavel Luzanov
Postgres Professional: https://postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company