> On Oct 11, 2021, at 11:33 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > > I definitely think that it warrants a warning box. This is a huge > practical difference. > > Note that I'm talking about a standard thing, which there are > certainly a dozen or more examples of in the docs already. Just grep > for "<warning> </warning>" tags to see the existing warning boxes. Yes, sure, I know they exist. It's just that I have a vague recollection of a discussion on -hackers about whether we should be using them so much. The documentation for contrib/amcheck has a paragraph but not a warning box. Should that be changed also? — Mark Dilger EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
- Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on ... Peter Geoghegan
- Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on ... Mark Dilger
- Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on ... Peter Geoghegan
- Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on ... Mark Dilger
- Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on ... Peter Geoghegan
- Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on ... Mark Dilger
- Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on ... Peter Geoghegan
- Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on ... Peter Geoghegan
- Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on ... Mark Dilger
- Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on ... Peter Geoghegan
- Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on ... Mark Dilger
- Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on ... Peter Geoghegan
- Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary rel... Peter Geoghegan