On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 6:27 PM Japin Li <japi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 at 03:58, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 09:29:20PM +0800, Japin Li wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 at 08:49, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > >> > 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. > >> > >> IMO we can add the following sentence for wal_level description, since > >> if wal_level = minimal and max_wal_senders > 0, we cannot start the > database. > >> > >> To set wal_level to minimal, you must also set max_wal_senders to 0, > >> which has the effect of disabling both WAL archiving and streaming > >> replication. > > > > Okay, text added in the attached patch. > > Thanks for updating the patch! LGTM. > > +0.90 Consider changing: "makes any base backups taken before this unusable" to: "makes existing base backups unusable" As I try to justify this, though, it isn't quite true, maybe: "makes point-in-time recovery, using existing base backups, unable to replay future WAL." David J.
