Hi,
On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 08:53:44AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> 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.
>
Thank you both for giving your thoughts on it, I got your points and I'm OK with
"wal_level_insufficient".
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
