Re: pgsql: doc: fix wording describing the checkpoint_flush_after GUC

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgsql: doc: fix wording describing the checkpoint_flush_after GUC
Date: 2023-11-13 11:31:42
Message-ID: 202311131131.pmrvuac6ziy2@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

On 2023-Nov-09, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> doc: fix wording describing the checkpoint_flush_after GUC

Hmm. Is this new wording really more clear than the original wording?
I agree the original may not have been the most simple, but I don't
think it was wrong English.

I'm not suggesting to revert this change, but rather I'd like to prevent
future changes of this type. Just saying it'd be sad to turn all the
Postgres documentation to using Basic English or whatever.

--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La fuerza no está en los medios físicos
sino que reside en una voluntad indomable" (Gandhi)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2023-11-13 13:22:28 pgsql: doc: Add missing semicolon in example
Previous Message Etsuro Fujita 2023-11-13 10:14:02 pgsql: Remove incorrect file reference in comment.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2023-11-13 11:31:55 Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication
Previous Message Junwang Zhao 2023-11-13 10:42:08 Re: Re: How to solve the problem of one backend process crashing and causing other processes to restart?