Re: The suggestion of reducing autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay should be documented

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> To be clear, because my cursory reading of the thread that was linked from
> the commit suggested that this specific situation was more "lets catch up
> to modern times", my position isn't that such documentation changes should
> be done as a rule, I am suggesting that we give a yes/no decision on this
> specific change (in advance of bike-shedding the wording).  IMO neither a
> blanket rule allowing or prohibiting such a change to the documentation
> makes sense given the rarity of the event.

Sure.  My point was just that changing the back-branch documentation would
require doing additional testing to verify that the proposed value is
an improvement in those branches.

            regards, tom lane