On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 12:29 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > +1, I saw that today and thought it was outside our usual style.
> > > > The whole thing is awfully verbose for a GUC description, too.
> > > > Maybe
> > > >
> > > > "Maximum distance to read ahead in WAL to prefetch data blocks."
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > For "we", I must have been distracted by code comment style. For the
> > > extra useless verbiage, it's common for GUC description to begin "This
> > > control/affects/blah" like that, but I agree it's useless noise.
> > >
> > > For the other cases, Amit's suggestion of 'server' seems sensible to me.
> >
> > Thaks for the opinion. I'm fine with that, too.
> >
>
> So, the change related to wal_decode_buffer_size needs to be
> backpatched to 15 whereas other message changes will be HEAD only, am
> I correct?
>
I would like to pursue as per above unless there is more feedback on this.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
