Re: Fix the example in the document of file-fdw

[Fujii Masao]

On 2020/09/14 16:56, Michael Paquier wrote:

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 04:10:03PM +0900, btkatsuragiyu wrote:

However, I think showing complete DDL including SERVER pglog and OPTIONS
would be helpful
to users who are not familiar with this feature.


Agreed.



Yeah, this could be mentioned on the doc page for file_fdw with an
extra sentence, but I agree that it is more complex to understand that
than a simple copy-paste from the doc itself.


So ISTM our consensus is to apply the proposed patch.
Barring any objection, I will do that.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

Re: Fix the example in the document of file-fdw

[Michael Paquier]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 04:43:39PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> So ISTM our consensus is to apply the proposed patch.
> Barring any objection, I will do that.

No objections from here at the end.
--
Michael


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Installation on Cygwin

[Daniel Gustafsson]

> On 8 Sep 2020, at 15:44, Magnus Hagander  wrote
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:52 PM Bruce Momjian  > wrote:

> I am thinking the list of operating systems should just be removed.
> 
> Are you referring to the whole section 16.7 in the 12 version 
> (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/installation-platform-notes.html 
> )? 
> 
> I can agree with that, and say that maybe that type of content is better 
> maintained on the wiki?

At least for operating systems which are EOL when the major version ships, that
seems like content for the Wiki.  That being said, the phrasing in 16.6 does
indicate that it's quie intentional:

"Look in Section 16.7 below to see if there is information specific to your
operating system, particularly if using an older system."

cheers ./daniel

application_name parameter

[PG Doc comments form]

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/runtime-config-logging.html
Description:

Hi!

In section "19.8.3. What to Log" appears "application name (string)"
parameter which is not in the postgresql.conf configuration file.

Is it a mistake, or am I confused?

Thanks!

Re: application_name parameter

[David G. Johnston]

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020, PG Doc comments form 
wrote:

> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/runtime-config-logging.html
> Description:
>
> Hi!
>
> In section "19.8.3. What to Log" appears "application name (string)"
> parameter which is not in the postgresql.conf configuration file.
>
> Is it a mistake, or am I confused?
>
>
Its doesn’t make sense to set that at the server level so why should it
appear in postgres.comf?

David J.

Re: replication wordsmithing / clarifications

[Robert Treat]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 4:11 AM Michael Paquier  wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 12:40:45PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> > maybe "to one or more replicas." or maybe "to one or more replica
> > targets." I'd avoid the word cluster because you could set it up to
> > send to multiple databases in the same postgres cluster.
>
> Magnus has given a better suggestion: to just use "servers".
>

I think I like targets over servers, since it could be a different
server or the same server or even the same database, but happy either
way.

> > If you think about it, this sentence is essentially saying "If you
> > don't like the downsides of this replication method, you can use an
> > entirely different replication method." Well sure, you could, but once
> > you are using a different method, you are no longer using the method
> > we are trying to describe. In addition, there are several other
> > systems you could use beyond the suggested one, so suggestion this
> > specific one felt mis-leading or out of place. And it is not something
> > we talk about in any of the other sections (after all, every
> > replication system has trade-offs that might not be acceptable, that's
> > why we have so many of them).
>
> OK, I see your point.  Seeing like that, it makes sense.

LMK if you'd like an updated patch. Also I wrote this against master,
but could verify it against 13 if folks wanted to backpatch (it might
apply cleanly though)


Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net

Re: replication wordsmithing / clarifications

[Michael Paquier]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 01:47:07PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> I think I like targets over servers, since it could be a different
> server or the same server or even the same database, but happy either
> way.

I'd say the opposite here: servers over targets.  But that's just one
opinion.

> LMK if you'd like an updated patch. Also I wrote this against master,
> but could verify it against 13 if folks wanted to backpatch (it might
> apply cleanly though)

If you can send a patch, that would be great.  As that's an
improvement, I would go for HEAD only.
--
Michael


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature