Cc'ing -hackers. Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-09-24 10:37:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> > Should this patch not have also touched the per-table limits in > > reloptions.c? > > Hm. I guess that'd make sense. It's not really related to the goal of > making it realistic to test multixact/clog truncation, but it's less > confusing if consistent. Yeah, agreed. > > and I found places in create_table.sgml that claim these variables can be > > set to zero. You didn't break that with this patch, but it's still wrong. > > Seems to have been "broken" back in 834a6da4f7 - the old table based > approach doesn't seem to have imposed lower limits. I'm not really sure > whether making the limits consistent and updating the docs or removing > them alltogether is the better approach. I'm surprised the error has survived this long. Without checking I can't say what's the best solution either, but I would opt for documenting the limits we have -- if we want to change them back to 0 I say that merits its own discussion. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
