Re: A question about wording in messages

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:46 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> At Fri, 16 Sep 2022 12:10:05 +1200, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> > 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.
>
> Thaks for the opinion. I'm fine with that, too.
>

So, the change related to wal_decode_buffer_size needs to be
backpatched to 15 whereas other message changes will be HEAD only, am
I correct?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.