Re: doc review for v14

From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: doc review for v14
Date: 2021-03-01 00:46:47
Message-ID: 20210301004647.GF20769@telsasoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 04:18:51PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> This leaves 0003, 0004, 0005, 0010, 0012, 0018, 0020 and 0021 as these
> did not look like improvements after review.

It looks like you applied 0010...but I agree that it's not an improvement. It
appears that's something I intended to go back and revisit myself.
The rest of the patch looks right, to me.

Subject: [PATCH 10/21] doc review for checksum docs
doc/src/sgml/wal.sgml | 18 +++++++++---------

I'm suggesting to either revert that part, or apply these more polished changes
in 0002.

--
Justin

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Partially-revert-bcf2667bf62d72faced64cb60ffbd2e599a.patch text/x-diff 2.3 KB
0002-Second-attempt-to-improve-checksum-docs.patch text/x-diff 2.2 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-03-01 00:53:49 Regex back-reference semantics and performance
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2021-02-28 23:08:17 Re: Different compression methods for FPI