Re: fixes for a few GUC descriptions

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>
Cc: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: fixes for a few GUC descriptions
Date: 2026-09-11 15:34:45
Message-ID: aqQfleGBvlEiDQbE@nathan
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 11:14:03AM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> Maybe it should say "0 means do not wait, -1 means wait indefinitely."
> This complements the short_desc,
>
> Sets the maximum time the server waits during shutdown for all WAL data
> to be replicated to the receiver.
>
> I think the words "for the receiver to catch up" is somehow at odds with
> the short_desc's "for all WAL data to be replicated". They should be
> saying the same thing, but aren't.

WFM. v2 uses that wording, except -1 is listed first so that the special
values stay in ascending order.

I was considering back-patching this to v19. I'd rather not update the
descriptions in released versions, although I'm not even sure anything in
released versions need fixing. Any concerns about this?

--
nathan

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-Describe-special-values-in-more-GUC-descriptions.patch text/plain 3.7 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Patrick Reinhart 2026-09-11 15:37:01 Re: Proposal to allow setting cursor options on Portals
Previous Message Robert Haas 2026-09-11 15:24:24 Re: pg_get_*_ddl() needs a redesign