On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:28:25PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:12:58PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > > On 11 Apr 2023, at 16:53, Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > > > > I think "logical" should be a <literal> here. > > > > Agree, it should in order to be consistent. > > Indeed. > > + to the wal_level parameter change on the primary won't be decoded. > > This wal_level should also have a markup. > > Number of uses of logical slots in this database that have been > - canceled due to old snapshots or a too low <xref > linkend="guc-wal-level"/> > + canceled due to old snapshots or too low a <xref > linkend="guc-wal-level"/> > > This sounds a bit strange to me. A too low wal_level would be a cause > for a cancel, hence shouldn't this be "canceled due to old snapshots > or due to a too low guc-wal-level?
That's the same as the original language which Thom and I are requesting to change, (but you added another "due to"). "a too low" is poor english. It's good enough for a code comment, but this is a user-facing doc. It could be "an inadequate wal-level" or "a prohibitively low wal-level", but Thom's language is better. "too low a wal-level" means the same thing as "too low of a wal-level" (which would also be fine). -- Justin
