From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: doc: fix wording describing the checkpoint_flush_after GUC
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 17:49:59 +0100
Message-ID: <202311141649.sjwd4c5kzzl6@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231114003256.huzptjmwb6c2prrb@awork3.anarazel.de>
Hola-hallo,
On 2023-Nov-13, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-11-13 12:31:42 +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2023-Nov-09, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > doc: fix wording describing the checkpoint_flush_after GUC
> >
> > Hmm. Is this new wording really more clear than the original wording?
> > I agree the original may not have been the most simple, but I don't
> > think it was wrong English.
>
> I think it was somewhat wrong (I probably wrote it) or at least awkwardly
> formulated. "force the OS that pages .. should be flushed" doesn't make a ton
> of sense.
Heh, you know what? I was mistaken. There was indeed a grammatical
error being fixed. The complaint [1] was that "you" was missing in the
sentence, and apparently that's correct [2].
[1] https://postgr.es/m/155208475619.1380.12815553062985622271@wrigleys.postgresql.org
[2] https://english.stackexchange.com/a/60285
So the core of the requested change was to turn "allows to force" into
"allows you to force". And this means that your new proposal:
> It probably should be something like:
> On Linux and POSIX platforms <xref linkend="guc-checkpoint-flush-after"/>
> allows to request that the OS flushes pages written by the checkpoint to disk
> after a configurable number of bytes. Otherwise, these [...]
would still fall afoul of the reported problem, because it still says
"allows to request", which is bad English.
> OTOH, the new formulation doesn't seem great either. The request(s) that we
> make to the OS are not guaranteed to be followed, so the "should be" was
> actually a correct part of the sentence.
Hmm, I hadn't noticed that nuance. Your text looks OK to me, except
that "... after a configurable number of bytes" reads odd after what's
already in the sentence. I would rewrite it in a different form, maybe
On Linux and POSIX platforms, checkpoint_flush_after specifies the
number of bytes written by a checkpoint after which the OS is requested
to flush pages to disk. Otherwise, these pages ...
Cheers
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Ninguna manada de bestias tiene una voz tan horrible como la humana" (Orual)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, andres@anarazel.de, bruce@momjian.us, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: doc: fix wording describing the checkpoint_flush_after GUC
In-Reply-To: <202311141649.sjwd4c5kzzl6@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox