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.
+ as invalidated. Possible values are:
+ <itemizedlist spacing="compact">
Higher-level nit: indentation seems to be one space off here.
--
Michael
