Subject: Re: Typo in description of replay_lag attribute in
 pg_stat_replication view
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
 Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
References: <27b3b80c-3615-2d76-02c5-44566b53136c@gmail.com>
 <20181204001802.GK3423@paquier.xyz>
 <CAEepm=3rVm=krEhefk-o=e4KTG3ry_QMJWcn7DgFSGbOc4_UYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181204021925.GM3423@paquier.xyz>
From: Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0cfde408-a360-3461-124c-cfa0c72e3b0d@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 01:24:22 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181204021925.GM3423@paquier.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk

04.12.2018 5:19, Michael Paquier wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 01:28:15PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:18 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>>> Yes, you are right.  It should be "on" as "remote_flush" is not a valid
>>> value.  remote_flush is listed in SyncCommitLevel though, so this makes
>>> me wonder if we should also introduce a new value for this purpose
>>> available for users.  The fix you propose looks good to me.  Any
>>> opinions from others?
>> +1 for the patch.
> Thanks for confirming, Thomas.  I'll go apply hopefully tomorrow if
> nobody has objections.
>
>> As for introducing remote_flush as the true name of the level, this
>> was discussed but somehow went off-course and never made it to the
>> finish line:
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAEepm%3D3FFaanSS4sugG%2BApzq2tCVjEYCO2wOQBod2d7GWb%3DDvA%40mail.gmail.com
> Oh, I forgot this one.  We may want to revive that...  remote_flush is
> more meaningful than on, especially since there are more and more
> possible values for synchronous_commit.


Yeah, I think the notion *remote_flush level* is more appropriate 
especially in the context of sync replication. Within this context maybe 
it makes sense to replace the word *level* to *value* in description of 
*flush_lag*?

-- 
Regards,
Maksim Milyutin