Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this?

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun ago 23 12:40:32 -0400 2010:
> > 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.
> 
> Sorry, yes, I was also thinking "after".  I don't know what made me
> write "before" but it wasn't clarity of thought.

OK, I have attached a proposed patch to improve this.  I moved the
pg_clog mention to a new paragraph and linked it to the reason the
default is relatively low.

Comments?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +