From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: inconsistent quoting in error messages |
Date: | 2024-05-21 05:14:09 |
Message-ID: | CAHut+PsqH3_cFFk9Vk-Ra8y=xusMqhXtgHndZDHkz54e3s-pOQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 2:56 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I noticed that there are slightly inconsistent messages regarding
> quoting policies.
>
> > This happens if you temporarily set "wal_level=minimal" on the server.
> > WAL generated with "full_page_writes=off" was replayed during online backup
>
> > pg_log_standby_snapshot() can only be used if "wal_level" >= "replica"
>
> > WAL streaming ("max_wal_senders" > 0) requires "wal_level" to be "replica" or "logical"
>
> I think it's best to quote variable names and values separately, like
> "wal_level" = "minimal" (but not use quotes for numeric values), as it
> seems to be the most common practice. Anyway, we might want to unify
> them.
>
>
> Likewise, I saw two different versions of values with units.
>
> > "max_stack_depth" must not exceed %ldkB.
> > "vacuum_buffer_usage_limit" must be 0 or between %d kB and %d kB
>
> I'm not sure, but it seems like the latter version is more common.
>
> regards.
>
Hi,
I think it might be better to keep all the discussions about GUC
quoting and related topics like this confined to the main thread here
[1]. Otherwise, we might end up with a bunch of competing patches.
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-05-21 05:33:16 | Re: Cleaning up perl code |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-05-21 04:43:43 | Re: Postgres and --config-file option |