Re: Small mistake (grammar/wording)

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 08:39:39AM +, PG Doc comments form wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/libpq-exec.html > Description: > > Hi, > > just found a small mistake in > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/curr

Re: REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY interaction with ORDER BY

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 02:54:29PM +, PG Doc comments form wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/sql-refreshmaterializedview.html > Description: > > On 10.7 we hit a case where the backing query had an order b

Re: Clarification to pg_upgrade docs on reverting to old cluster

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 02:23:22PM +, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > On Friday, April 5, 2019 2:26 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > but wouldn't it sound better with "in this case" than "at this point"? And > as a really small nitpick, restore from backup, rather than backups? > > > Agreed.

Re: Mark a reloption as indexterm

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 4:11 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2019-Apr-10, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to propose to mark reloptions as indexterms, like GUC, > > so that users can more easily search the pages describing > > a reloption in document. Attached is the patch which does

Re: Mark a reloption as indexterm

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:33:45PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > Indeed. Attached is the updated version of the patch. On top of what Alvaro has mentioned, it seems to me that we should make the difference between table-level configuration parameter and index-level configuration parameters, and also

Re: Mark a reloption as indexterm

On 2019-Apr-12, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 4:11 AM Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > > > On 2019-Apr-10, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'd like to propose to mark reloptions as indexterms, like GUC, > > > so that users can more easily search the pages describing > > >

Re: Mark a reloption as indexterm

On 2019-Apr-12, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:33:45PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > > Indeed. Attached is the updated version of the patch. > > On top of what Alvaro has mentioned, it seems to me that we should > make the difference between table-level configuration parameter

Re: Mark a reloption as indexterm

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 11:57:32PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Are you suggesting that it should show "index storage parameters" and > "table storage parameters"? I'm not sure about that myself ... > particularly considering that certain parameters might apply to some > index AMs and not others

Re: Mark a reloption as indexterm

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:54 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2019-Apr-12, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 4:11 AM Alvaro Herrera > > wrote: > > > > > > On 2019-Apr-10, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose to mark reloptions as indexterms, lik

Re: Mark a reloption as indexterm

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 1:09 PM Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 11:57:32PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Are you suggesting that it should show "index storage parameters" and > > "table storage parameters"? I'm not sure about that myself ... > > particularly considering that

Re: Clarification to pg_upgrade docs on reverting to old cluster

On Friday, April 12, 2019 3:48 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 02:23:22PM +, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > > On Friday, April 5, 2019 2:26 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote: > > but wouldn't it sound better with "in this case" than "at this point"? And > > as a re