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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
