Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:
> > On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think the main problem is the qualifying clause up front in a place
> >> of prominence. Here's a V3 try
>
> > That one looks good to me. These are small details but better to get it
> > right now.
>
> OK, committed. Back to Alvaro's original concern: is the short
> description in guc.c all right, or can we improve that?
I have tried to improve the GUC description for
"bgwriter_lru_multiplier"; applied to CVS HEAD.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Index: src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.432
diff -c -c -r1.432 guc.c
*** src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c 30 Jan 2008 18:35:55 -0000 1.432
--- src/backend/utils/misc/guc.c 6 Mar 2008 16:22:44 -0000
***************
*** 1841,1847 ****
{
{"bgwriter_lru_multiplier", PGC_SIGHUP, RESOURCES,
! gettext_noop("Background writer multiplier on average buffers to scan per round."),
NULL
},
&bgwriter_lru_multiplier,
--- 1841,1847 ----
{
{"bgwriter_lru_multiplier", PGC_SIGHUP, RESOURCES,
! gettext_noop("Multiple of the average buffer usage to free per round."),
NULL
},
&bgwriter_lru_multiplier,