Hi David,
On 1/15/21 2:50 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
> If the above wants to be made more explicit in this change maybe:
>
> "This is mitigated by the fact that archiving, and thus filling, the
> active WAL segment will not happen if that segment is empty; it will
> continue as the active segment."
"archiving, and thus filling" seems awkward to me. Perhaps:
This is mitigated by the fact that WAL segments will not be archived
until they have been filled with some data, even if the archive_timeout
period has elapsed.
> Consistency is good; and considering it further the skipped wording is
> generally better anyway.
>
> "The automatic checkpoint will be skipped if no new WAL has been written
> since the last recorded checkpoint."
Looks good to me.
Could you produce a new patch so Peter has something complete to look at?
Regards,
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net
