On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 7:10 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@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. > + as invalidated. Possible values are: > + <itemizedlist spacing="compact"> > Higher-level nit: indentation seems to be one space off here. > Thanks, fixed in the attached patch. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
v6-0001-Track-conflict_reason-in-pg_replication_slots.patch
Description: Binary data
