Re: [patch] [doc] Further note required activity aspect of automatic checkpoint and archving

Hi David,

On 1/15/21 2:50 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> 
> If the above wants to be made more explicit in this change maybe:
> 
> "This is mitigated by the fact that archiving, and thus filling, the 
> active WAL segment will not happen if that segment is empty; it will 
> continue as the active segment."

"archiving, and thus filling" seems awkward to me. Perhaps:

This is mitigated by the fact that WAL segments will not be archived 
until they have been filled with some data, even if the archive_timeout 
period has elapsed.

> Consistency is good; and considering it further the skipped wording is 
> generally better anyway.
> 
> "The automatic checkpoint will be skipped if no new WAL has been written 
> since the last recorded checkpoint."
Looks good to me.

Could you produce a new patch so Peter has something complete to look at?

Regards,
-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net