From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A question about wording in messages |
Date: | 2022-09-16 00:10:05 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKGLsEeC-0SnPDJZh9Cbk0vXCCy1ttPD-MXDP=R2kDemGkQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 2:38 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)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.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2022-09-16 00:22:08 | Re: remove_useless_groupby_columns is too enthusiastic |
Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2022-09-16 00:06:05 | Re: Kerberos delegation support in libpq and postgres_fdw |