On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 8:05 PM James Coleman <jtc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 6:51 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > > > On 2020-Nov-30, James Coleman wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 4:53 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2020-Sep-30, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, I think it might be more sensible to document this in > > > > maintenance.sgml, as part of the paragraph that discusses removing > > > > tuples "to save space". But making it inline with the rest of the flow, > > > > it seems to distract from higher-level considerations, so I suggest to > > > > make it a footnote instead. > > > > > > I have mixed feelings about wholesale moving it; users aren't likely > > > to read the vacuum doc when considering how running CIC might impact > > > their system, though I do understand why it otherwise fits there. > > > > Makes sense. ISTM that if we want to have a cautionary blurb CIC docs, > > it should go in REINDEX CONCURRENTLY as well. > > Agreed. Or, alternatively, a blurb something like "Please note how CIC > interacts with VACUUM <link>...", and then the primary language in > maintenance.sgml. That would have the benefit of maintaining the core > language in only one place.
Any thoughts on this? James
