Обсуждение: Correction for vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age
Hello, When trying to make a link to the new vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age parameter, I found the wrong ID for this guc (missed word vacuum). Please consider this patch for a fix. -- Pavel Luzanov Postgres Professional: https://postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
Вложения
On Tue, 2021-10-12 at 08:22 +0300, Pavel Luzanov wrote: > When trying to make a link to the new vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age parameter, > I found the wrong ID for this guc (missed word vacuum). > Please consider this patch for a fix. It is good to be consistent, but the name of the link is not essential, is it? Changing it might break existing outside links. Yours, Laurenz Albe
Hello, >> When trying to make a link to the new vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age parameter, >> I found the wrong ID for this guc (missed word vacuum). >> Please consider this patch for a fix. > It is good to be consistent, but the name of the link is not essential, is it? > Changing it might break existing outside links. Not essential, it's true. I haven't seen any rules in the documentation on forming links for guc. But how many external links could have been made since September 30? And how many times in the future will people encounter inconsistency in constructing a link to this parameter? It seems to me that it's better to fix it. But right now I need a link to this parameter for an article, and I want to see if there's a chance to change the reference to the familiar one or use the current one. Pavel Luzanov Postgres Professional: https://postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:46 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > Yeah, this one is new as of commit 1e55e7d1755c; ISTM we should just fix it. Agreed. Pushed Pavel's patch just now. Thanks -- Peter Geoghegan
Hi,
Agreed. Pushed Pavel's patch just now.
Sorry, I didn't check it right away. But it makes sense to backport to v14, where vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age was introduced.
-- Pavel Luzanov Postgres Professional: https://postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
On 2021-Oct-28, Pavel Luzanov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Agreed. Pushed Pavel's patch just now.
>
> Sorry, I didn't check it right away.
> But it makes sense to backport to v14, where vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age was introduced.
It is in 14.
Author: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Branch: master [00c61a74b] 2021-10-12 10:59:24 -0700
Branch: REL_14_STABLE [070c402b4] 2021-10-12 10:59:22 -0700
Doc: normalize vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age ID.
Author: Pavel Luzanov <p.luzanov@postgrespro.ru>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/c71a3cfc-a267-3d9f-1b44-fbd668d0ab10@postgrespro.ru
Backpatch: 14-, where the failsafe was introduced.
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 1:58 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > It is in 14. Right. It won't be reflected on the website until 14.1 is released, though. -- Peter Geoghegan
Hi, > It won't be reflected on the website until 14.1 is released, though. Thank you! I had completely forgotten about that and looking for changes on the website. -- Pavel Luzanov Postgres Professional: https://postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company