| From: | Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Jingtang Zhang <mrdrivingduck(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Possible inaccurate description of wal_compression in docs |
| Date: | 2025-08-13 05:33:26 |
| Message-ID: | CABPTF7WAJCeXfH_hBJK=2ALnAJHuSwwHBWDpqbNzQWJtLGRi0w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 12:41 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 06:59:55PM +0300, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> > FPWs are used here and there in a lot of places, like "FPI for
> > hint". And indexes are build using FPI for many years, it did not
> > start with 17...
> > This list is not exhaustive in any case, so I agree that formulation
> > should not be very strict.
>
> Perhaps, yes, the formulation used in this paragraph could be a bit
> more evasive. What we do not want is to keep a wording that would
> require more maintenance each time the internals of the backend are
> changed, so adding an extra "like" may be OK.
>
> Do any of you have a specific wording in mind?
>
>
"Like" LGMT.
Best,
Xuneng
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vignesh C | 2025-08-13 05:48:17 | Re: Add support for specifying tables in pg_createsubscriber. |
| Previous Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2025-08-13 05:11:40 | RE: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |