Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 04:00:24PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Tue, 25 Feb 2020 21:36:12 -0800, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote in
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:01:51AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > At Sat, 22 Feb 2020 21:12:20 -0800, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote in
> > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 04:49:59PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > If we decide to keep the consistency there, I would like to describe
> > > the code is there for consistency, not for the benefit of a specific
> > > assertion.
> > >
> > > (cluster.c:1116)
> > > - * new. The next step for rel2 is deletion, but copy rd_*Subid for the
> > > - * benefit of AssertPendingSyncs_RelationCache().
> > > + * new. The next step for rel2 is deletion, but copy rd_*Subid for the
> > > + * consistency of the fieles. It is checked later by
> > > + * AssertPendingSyncs_RelationCache().
> >
> > I think the word "consistency" is too vague for "consistency of the fields" to
> > convey information. May I just remove the last sentence of the comment
> > (everything after "* new.")?
>
> I'm fine with that:)
>
> > > I agree that relation works as the generic name of table-like
> > > objects. Addition to that, doesn't using the word "storage file" make
> > > it more clearly? I'm not confident on the wording itself, but it will
> > > look like the following.
> >
> > The docs rarely use "storage file" or "on-disk file" as terms. I hesitate to
> > put more emphasis on files, because they are part of the implementation, not
> > part of the user interface. The term "rewrites"/"rewriting" has the same
> > problem, though. Yet another alternative would be to talk about operations
> > that change the pg_relation_filenode() return value:
> >
> > In <literal>minimal</literal> level, no information is logged for permanent
> > relations for the remainder of a transaction that creates them or changes
> > what <function>pg_relation_filenode</function> returns for them.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> It sounds somewhat obscure.

I see. I won't use that.

> Coulnd't we enumetate examples? And if we
> could use pg_relation_filenode, I think we can use just
> "filenode". (Thuogh the word is used in the documentation, it is not
> defined anywhere..)

func.sgml does define the term. Nonetheless, I'm not using it.

> ====
> In <literal>minimal</literal> level, no information is logged for
> permanent relations for the remainder of a transaction that creates
> them or changes their <code>filenode</code>. For example, CREATE
> TABLE, CLUSTER or REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW are the command of that
> category.
> ====
>
> # sorry for bothering you..

Including examples is fine. Attached v36nm has just comment and doc changes.
Would you translate this into back-patch versions for v9.5 through v12?