Re: Inaccuracy in wal_receiver_status_interval parameter description

From: "Euler Taveira" <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>
To: "Michael Paquier" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "Dmitriy Kuzmin" <kuzmin(dot)db4(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Inaccuracy in wal_receiver_status_interval parameter description
Date: 2021-02-22 00:21:41
Message-ID: 0c781819-bda3-4ec8-a464-a63c63695ea5@www.fastmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

On Sun, Feb 21, 2021, at 3:58 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> That's an idea. While looking at that I found confusing that the
> sentence "Setting this parameter to zero disables status updates
> completely" was completely separate of the rest, where it sounds like
> even forced messages are disabled if the parameter value is zero, but
> I think that we should outline that this only applies to the scheduled
> replies. Attached is what I get. What do you think?
LGTM.

--
Euler Taveira
EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message PG Doc comments form 2021-02-22 07:36:28 incoorect restore_command
Previous Message Vik Fearing 2021-02-21 14:14:12 Re: GROUP BY DISTINCT