Re: Doc about how to set max_wal_senders when setting minimal wal_level

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Doc about how to set max_wal_senders when setting minimal wal_level
Date: 2022-07-15 00:49:36
Message-ID: YtC5oOW7H50vT/
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 08:02:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Precondition" is an overly fancy word that makes things less clear
> not more so. Does it mean that setting wal_level = minimal will fail
> if you don't do these other things, or does it just mean that you
> won't be getting the absolute minimum WAL volume? If the former,
> I think it'd be better to say something like "To set wal_level to minimal,
> you must also set [these variables], which has the effect of disabling
> both WAL archiving and streaming replication."

I have created the attached patch to try to improve this text.

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

Indecision is a decision. Inaction is an action. Mark Batterson

Attachment Content-Type Size
wal.diff text/x-diff 2.6 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2022-07-15 01:27:17 Re: doc: Clarify Routines and Extension Membership
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-07-15 00:36:54 Re: BUG #17434: CREATE/DROP DATABASE can be executed in the same transaction with other commands