Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lDyzQ-0004Gq-26 for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:22:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lDyzN-0005Ty-Ii for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:22:13 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lDyzN-0005Tr-Cn for pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:22:13 +0000 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lDyzE-0003D6-Qp for pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:22:11 +0000 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84C355C0079; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 19:22:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from imap21 ([10.202.2.71]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 21 Feb 2021 19:22:02 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eulerto.com; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to:cc :subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=2XkDVBGoDFe/Ere8xwbMpRf9DoEXxwn oB+Rc8cYQLok=; b=8HNFrWI3lQz9YvW3tpsTXQIZlCBxG5LltiEeobxJCV5dHzr G6kRQaxgdlavywIo/t5MG0LUF5nlx+5jXchoXo2IfdJW52ddAgiKSbzYZPmLF1AS 0kDJ8RIqk8EiqGFUCg+YFsSvKHouphNEvwXO2w61CPRCv0FQkrY6yIHPOoRrZ6EH kQ52mGFzzyFy+A9FtMolrH625Sj4Eb7MV00PRHE9nch+4yFZ6rAf7ACBqeN+1NVM o/+jOlaCrZdEO0VCMj23tz1SBd/LImvW7teAxZm8EbB30zw3Lq7qHIaylQjYm61A lzGZ2NznX5NMzgEenKfWkpIRIb/yagrej38TzXg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=2XkDVB GoDFe/Ere8xwbMpRf9DoEXxwnoB+Rc8cYQLok=; b=sNxyqLGVkMKNIpFfEfyxYv ARCQavQOSaGb4Z7TNbr2vxxMXI4fcx/rx6n0qAQhya1F/2cHC+8W+/rZHDySYG3N 9czNz2MfwKCo0xHkLKzg55MqRDzXejzjuy09ExQNxHEI6p46zSleXEa/F0U5PY68 a9WK3Oy1+b4kRVJ+Pn2eJmi17DBRengCXoSBs808+IBORoSGrnvMUWlBXHoFi48I /Mb1X8UgTfB0Fj9X4L6u+01Z97j7RRvB7NE8I6mYEpJnH6zgFB2IwJZSEf3SdYPY EjOnaJQdTIjzwTPclj1TcFBJWc+AnU+MNrA6ffBccB9sDDowLzpHMcrH1SgcD//A == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrkedvgddvudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsegrtderreerredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfgfhulhgv rhcuvfgrvhgvihhrrgdfuceovghulhgvrhesvghulhgvrhhtohdrtghomheqnecuggftrf grthhtvghrnhepjeethfeuvdfgffdtteevudeftdejueffkeelveekhfevkeegleefhfej hedtjeegnecuffhomhgrihhnpegvnhhtvghrphhrihhsvggusgdrtghomhenucevlhhush htvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegvuhhlvghrsegvuhhl vghrthhordgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6BDB651C005D; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 19:22:01 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-141-gf094924a34-fm-20210210.001-gf094924a Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0c781819-bda3-4ec8-a464-a63c63695ea5@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <161346024420.3455.1345266601055047937@wrigleys.postgresql.org> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 21:21:41 -0300 From: "Euler Taveira" To: "Michael Paquier" , "Dmitriy Kuzmin" Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Inaccuracy in wal_receiver_status_interval parameter description Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=042f0168af704c6fb4d3c40274c9943b List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk --042f0168af704c6fb4d3c40274c9943b Content-Type: text/plain On Sun, Feb 21, 2021, at 3:58 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > That's an idea. While looking at that I found confusing that the > sentence "Setting this parameter to zero disables status updates > completely" was completely separate of the rest, where it sounds like > even forced messages are disabled if the parameter value is zero, but > I think that we should outline that this only applies to the scheduled > replies. Attached is what I get. What do you think? LGTM. -- Euler Taveira EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/ --042f0168af704c6fb4d3c40274c9943b Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Feb 21,= 2021, at 3:58 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
That's an idea.  While looking at th= at I found confusing that the
sentence "Setting this param= eter to zero disables status updates
completely" was compl= etely separate of the rest, where it sounds like
even forc= ed messages are disabled if the parameter value is zero, but
I think that we should outline that this only applies to the schedule= d
replies.  Attached is what I get.  What do you= think?
LGTM.

--
Euler Taveira
E= DB   https://www.ent= erprisedb.com/

--042f0168af704c6fb4d3c40274c9943b--