On 02.07.18 10:38, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> On 29 Jun 2018, at 18:44, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> +1 for shortening it as proposed by Peter. The existing arrangement >> made sense when it was first written, when there were only about three >> individual options IIRC. Now it's just confusing, especially since you >> can't tell very easily whether any of the individual options were >> intentionally omitted from the list. It will not get better with >> more options, either. > > Marking this "Waiting for Author” awaiting an update version expanding with > the > above comment.
I ended up rewriting that whole section a bit to give it more structure. I included all the points discussed in this thread. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
