Re: BUG #18124: PG16 release note document bug in "Add build option to allow testing of small WAL segment sizes"

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 10:45:04AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-09-21 22:08:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 6:47 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > >> Uh, it is true that we don't have any segment sizes other than WAL, but
> > >> I am not sure people would easily know that, so I added WAL so people
> > >> knew.
> >
> > > But the commit in question added a new option that can be used to
> > > control the relation segment size -- not the WAL segment size.
> > > Obviously, that's what TAKATSUKA-san meant.
> >
> > Yeah. The release note entry is simply wrong to say it's WAL segment size.
>
> Agreed. Bruce are you committing that bit?

Yes, I will try to do it tomorrow.

> > I would also argue that d3b111e32's installation.sgml changes
> > were poorly worded, because they only say "segment size" which can
> > easily be misunderstood, just as happened here. Better would be
> > "relation segment size" or "table segment size".
>
> Hm. Yea. I copied the language from --with-segsize, but there there's
> subsequent sentences that do clarify what the option relates to. I prefer
> "relation" over "table" as it affects indexes as well.
>
> Pushed that adjustment.

Thanks.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Only you can decide what is important to you.