From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict? |
Date: | 2024-01-03 01:39:46 |
Message-ID: | ZZS64loUZzEJPhiZ@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 02:07:58PM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> + <literal>wal_level_insufficient</literal> means that the
> + <xref linkend="guc-wal-level"/> is insufficient on the primary
> + server.
>
> I'd prefer "primary_wal_level" instead of "wal_level_insufficient". I think it's
> better to directly mention it is linked to the primary (without the need to refer
> to the documentation) and that the fact that it is "insufficient" is more or less
> implicit.
>
> Basically I think that with "primary_wal_level" one would need to refer to the doc
> less frequently than with "wal_level_insufficient".
I can see your point, but wal_level_insufficient speaks a bit more to
me because of its relationship with the GUC setting. Something like
wal_level_insufficient_on_primary may speak better, but that's also
quite long. I'm OK with what the patch does.
+ as invalidated. Possible values are:
+ <itemizedlist spacing="compact">
Higher-level nit: indentation seems to be one space off here.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2024-01-03 02:02:02 | Re: Reducing output size of nodeToString |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-01-03 01:30:05 | Re: Remove unneeded PGDATABASE setting from TAP tests |