To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember
	this?
In-reply-to: <1282579975-sup-2769@alvh.no-ip.org> 
References: <201008221651.o7MGplA28857@momjian.us>
	<1282579975-sup-2769@alvh.no-ip.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
	message dated "Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:14:52 -0400"
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:40:32 -0400
Message-ID: <22915.1282581632@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of dom ago 22 12:51:47 -0400 2010:
>> Do you have a suggestion?  Reorder the items?

> I'd add another para before that one saying that this value "also"
> affects pg_clog truncation.  I agree that putting pg_clog truncation as
> the first item here is not an improvement.  For most people, having
> those pg_clog files there or not is going to be a wash, compared to data
> size.

I was going to suggest that the point about pg_clog should be in a
separate paragraph *after* this one, since it seems like a secondary
issue.  But anyway, I agree with putting this para back as it was and
talking about clog in a separate para.

			regards, tom lane