Hi, On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 08:53:44AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 7:10 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Thanks, I also prefer "wal_level_insufficient". To me > "primary_wal_level" sounds more along the lines of a GUC name than the > conflict_reason. The other names that come to mind are > "wal_level_lower_than_required", "wal_level_lower", > "wal_level_lesser_than_required", "wal_level_lesser" but I feel > "wal_level_insufficient" sounds better than these. Having said that, I > am open to any of these or better options for this conflict_reason. >
Thank you both for giving your thoughts on it, I got your points and I'm OK with "wal_level_insufficient". Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
