Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 11:32:58 -0600
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Moving the vacuum GUCs' docs out of the Client Connection
 Defaults section
Message-ID: <Z31lSsdtgXj0mHii@nathan>
References: 
 <CAAKRu_aQUOaMYrcjNuXeSkJtaX9oRUzKP57bsYbC0gVVWS+cbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1373018.1736213217@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAAKRu_bz3BD4w0jmjfQkckAQE5eb-Ge2a=9Q-HG_rWSTeG_PzA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAKRu_bz3BD4w0jmjfQkckAQE5eb-Ge2a=9Q-HG_rWSTeG_PzA@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Z31lSsdtgXj0mHii%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 12:15:17PM -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> This is my first docs patch that introduces new sections and such, so
> I'm not sure I got the indentation 100% correct (I, of course, tried
> to follow conventions).

I haven't reviewed the patch in depth, but I think it's worth considering
whether this change will break any links that work in one version but break
if you change the version number.  I believe appendix-obsolete.sgml is
designed to help with that a bit, but I've had mixed results when I've
tried to use it.  Of course, it's also possible that we don't care too
much...

But overall, consolidating the docs for the vacuum GUCs seems like a good
idea.

-- 
nathan