Re: fixes for a few GUC descriptions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Chao Li
Subject Re: fixes for a few GUC descriptions
Date
Msg-id DB0C90EE-0485-405E-80D5-A1A6703E52C8@gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: fixes for a few GUC descriptions  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

> On Sep 11, 2026, at 08:54, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 9:18 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Some new parameters added since commit 977d865c36 do not follow the GUC
>>> description rules established by that commit.  I've attached a patch to fix
>>> them.
>>
>> Patch looks good to me.
>
> +1 except for one thing.
>
> -  long_desc => '-1 disables the timeout and waits for the receiver to
> catch up; 0 does not wait for the receiver to catch up.',
> +  long_desc => '-1 disables the timeout. 0 means do not wait for the
> receiver to catch up.',
>
> The previous wording was intentionally added based on Daniel's comment [1].
>
> Regards,
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/B5EB4E43-290E-4509-AFF5-06453E4966CE%40yesql.se
>> "A value of <literal>-1</literal> (the default) disables the timeout
>> mechanism"
>>
>> To me as a non-native speaker reading that a timeout is disabled can be
>> interpreted as if there is no waiting done, just like the in the case of 0.
>
> --
> Fujii Masao
>

Yeah, here -1 is really more like “wait forever”, so just saying “disables the timeout” feels like it loses that
distinction.

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/







pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Xuneng Zhou
Date:
Subject: Re: Implement waiting for wal lsn replay: reloaded
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for 8-byte TOAST values, round two