On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:46 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > At Fri, 16 Sep 2022 12:10:05 +1200, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> > wrote in > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 2:38 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> writes: > > > > I saw the following message recently modified. > > > >> This controls the maximum distance we can read ahead in the WAL to > > > >> prefetch referenced data blocks. > > > > Maybe the "we" means "PostgreSQL program and you" but I see it > > > > somewhat out of place. > > > > > > +1, I saw that today and thought it was outside our usual style. > > > The whole thing is awfully verbose for a GUC description, too. > > > Maybe > > > > > > "Maximum distance to read ahead in WAL to prefetch data blocks." > > > > +1 > > > > For "we", I must have been distracted by code comment style. For the > > extra useless verbiage, it's common for GUC description to begin "This > > control/affects/blah" like that, but I agree it's useless noise. > > > > For the other cases, Amit's suggestion of 'server' seems sensible to me. > > Thaks for the opinion. I'm fine with that, too. >
So, the change related to wal_decode_buffer_size needs to be backpatched to 15 whereas other message changes will be HEAD only, am I correct? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.