On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 7:10 AM Michael Paquier <michael@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.
> + as invalidated. Possible values are:
> + <itemizedlist spacing="compact">
> Higher-level nit: indentation seems to be one space off here.
>
Thanks, fixed in the attached patch.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
