Re: A question about wording in messages

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: A question about wording in messages
Date: 2022-09-16 00:10:05
Message-ID: CA+hUKGLsEeC-0SnPDJZh9Cbk0vXCCy1ttPD-MXDP=R2kDemGkQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 2:38 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I saw the following message recently modified.
> >> This controls the maximum distance we can read ahead in the WAL to prefetch referenced data blocks.
> > Maybe the "we" means "PostgreSQL program and you" but I see it
> > somewhat out of place.
>
> +1, I saw that today and thought it was outside our usual style.
> The whole thing is awfully verbose for a GUC description, too.
> Maybe
>
> "Maximum distance to read ahead in WAL to prefetch data blocks."

+1

For "we", I must have been distracted by code comment style. For the
extra useless verbiage, it's common for GUC description to begin "This
control/affects/blah" like that, but I agree it's useless noise.

For the other cases, Amit's suggestion of 'server' seems sensible to me.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2022-09-16 00:22:08 Re: remove_useless_groupby_columns is too enthusiastic
Previous Message Jacob Champion 2022-09-16 00:06:05 Re: Kerberos delegation support in libpq and postgres_fdw