Re: doc review for v14

On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 06:46:47PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> 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.

Oops. This was not intended.

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

I would just group both things together. Monday helping, I can see
that the new wording is better on a couple of points after doing a
diff of wal.sgml with c82d59d6:
- "checksum protected" in the first sentence is weird, so I agree that
using "By default, data pages are not protected by checksums" is an
improvement.
- "assigned" is indeed a bit strange, "includes" is an improvement,
and I would tend to not use a passive form here.
- "to recover from corrupt data" is redundant with "to recover data"
so the second one should be removed. My take is to use "page
corruptions" instead of "corrupt data", which should be corrupted data
to be grammatically correct.

This gives the attached, that has as result to not change the second
paragraph compared to the pre-c82d59d6 version of the area.
--
Michael