On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 12:29 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > +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? >
I would like to pursue as per above unless there is more feedback on this. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.