Re: [PATCH] Increase the maximum value track_activity_query_size

On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 01:48:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes:
>> I vote for not trying to make this more complicated and just accepting
>> the original proposal. It's about a factor of ten increase over the
>> limit we have right now, which doesn't seem like enough to cause any
>> real breakage, and it should be enough to satisfy the majority of the
>> people who are unhappy with the current limit, and it is very little
>> work.
> 
> +1 ... we've surely beaten this topic to death by now.

Sounds like an agreement then.  The original patch documents the range
in postgresql.conf.sample, which is fine by me as this is done for
some parameters, and skips the part about doc/, which also matches
with the surrounding effort for other parameters, so the whole looks
fine seen from here.  Anybody willing to commit that?
--
Michael

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=eTKe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----