From: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | 'Peter Smith' <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Давыдов Виталий <v(dot)davydov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Subject: | RE: Slow catchup of 2PC (twophase) transactions on replica in LR |
Date: | 2024-05-14 12:04:46 |
Message-ID: | OSBPR01MB2552F7859F0EF334B9E8BC03F5E32@OSBPR01MB2552.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Peter,
Thanks for reviewing! New patch is available in [1].
> I'm having second thoughts about how these patches mention the option
> values "on|off". These are used in the ALTER SUBSCRIPTION document
> page for 'two_phase' and 'failover' parameters, and then those
> "on|off" get propagated to the code comments, error messages, and
> tests...
>
> Now I see that on the CREATE SUBSCRIPTION page [1], every boolean
> parameter (even including 'two_phase' and 'failover') is described in
> terms of "true|false" (not "on|off").
Hmm. But I could sentences like "The default value is off,...". Also, in alter_subscription.sgml,
"on|off" notation has already been used. Not sure, but I felt there are no rules around here.
> In hindsight, it is probably better to refer only to true|false
> everywhere for these boolean parameters, instead of sometimes using
> different values like on|off.
>
> What do you think?
It's OK for me to make message/code comments consistent. Not sure the documentation,
but followed only my part.
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
https://www.fujitsu.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-05-14 12:20:24 | Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes |
Previous Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2024-05-14 12:03:58 | Re: Postgres and --config-file option |