On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:28:25PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:12:58PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > > On 11 Apr 2023, at 16:53, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I think "logical" should be a <literal> here.
> >
> > Agree, it should in order to be consistent.
>
> Indeed.
>
> + to the wal_level parameter change on the primary won't be decoded.
>
> This wal_level should also have a markup.
>
> Number of uses of logical slots in this database that have been
> - canceled due to old snapshots or a too low <xref linkend="guc-wal-level"/>
> + canceled due to old snapshots or too low a <xref linkend="guc-wal-level"/>
>
> This sounds a bit strange to me. A too low wal_level would be a cause
> for a cancel, hence shouldn't this be "canceled due to old snapshots
> or due to a too low guc-wal-level?
That's the same as the original language which Thom and I are requesting
to change, (but you added another "due to").
"a too low" is poor english. It's good enough for a code comment, but
this is a user-facing doc.
It could be "an inadequate wal-level" or "a prohibitively low
wal-level", but Thom's language is better. "too low a wal-level" means
the same thing as "too low of a wal-level" (which would also be fine).
--
Justin