Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vLiww-008F2y-0y for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:14:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vLiwt-00DH7z-2r for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:14:20 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vLiwt-00DH7r-1j for pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:14:19 +0000 Received: from smtp.outgoing.loopia.se ([93.188.3.37]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vLiwr-000N8H-30 for pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:14:19 +0000 Received: from s807.loopia.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by s807.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C3D4C74AC for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 15:14:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from s980.loopia.se (unknown [172.22.191.5]) by s807.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDAAC4C6E3C; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 15:14:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from s473.loopia.se (unknown [172.22.191.5]) by s980.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB18A220166C; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 15:14:16 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amavis.loopia.se X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 tagged_above=-999 required=6.2 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: s473.loopia.se (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yesql.se Received: from s934.loopia.se ([172.22.191.6]) by s473.loopia.se (s473.loopia.se [172.22.190.13]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with UTF8LMTP id vap0xz302nyY; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 15:14:16 +0100 (CET) X-Loopia-Auth: user X-Loopia-User: daniel@yesql.se X-Loopia-Originating-IP: 89.255.232.236 Received: from smtpclient.apple (customer-89-255-232-236.stosn.net [89.255.232.236]) (Authenticated sender: daniel@yesql.se) by s934.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3AA867CEA8F; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 15:14:16 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yesql.se; s=loopiadkim1707475645; t=1763561656; bh=hW0cp8Af4xY1q/8rYHoJDikhtRtHIn8sDhBAVQbBMHM=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=hvcqGVqPOJOMGK1v996ASaHcNqNIiJWfn1jGziWgqq6wWlWxPAXYNZsdR467BLtTm hOHDOVDTXlvzfjp9rJOyNeC7rTRwvDV7QqJDf26K0PWXMiFRgC99MzSIZE9z7wHhwW 90xknlHKXJqd/wElkGtReLrsP3+5r+3vL6krTbNH4EOv9yoC8pTpCHRMNwrDxvoMkT 83b/Y7KEzjnk2KBTqHXAFXEE2qpKLSyQbngijhZ81p08Zn1FQpIk74Ni8cHlw6eWmG 76N6Hu1KBDNBr3XoyG47rt6jgY2yMG/D+oecz6rB3R4Cpnq79+8tXVMHFR1vYL/AqG h+zVE2kG9rNSA== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3776.700.51.11.2\)) Subject: Re: Documentation improvement patch From: Daniel Gustafsson In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 15:14:05 +0100 Cc: Oleg , pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <3881A97B-0146-4389-9C39-3C596536750B@yesql.se> <84E4E3E6-D702-4604-AE0B-AF92B80B3833@yesql.se> <284a26c6-0a38-47ab-bd73-e28943029046@postgrespro.ru> <6de77026-b34f-4f32-a0f3-2dc345c4b1bf@eisentraut.org> <93538952-E9CC-492C-9BDD-9249AD4C6B91@yesql.se> To: Peter Eisentraut X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3776.700.51.11.2) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk > On 19 Nov 2025, at 12:02, Peter Eisentraut = wrote: > The following changes are left in your patch that should not be = changed per the above discussion (all in doc/src/sgml/protocol.sgml): I did consider these to be separate but re-reading I agree that they = should be removed. > Separately, maybe this could be improved further: >=20 > - Sets the maximum number of open files each server subprocess = is > + Sets the maximum number of files each server subprocess is > allowed to open simultaneously; files already opened in the >=20 > I think it would be more correct to say something like "... number of = files each server subprocess is allowed to have open simultaneously ..." = (not how many open actions are happening concurrently). I wonder if the original intent was to write "Sets the maximum number of = open files each server subprocess is allowed to have simultaneously;"? That = being said, your suggestion is better so I'll go with that. I will push the patch with the above changes a bit later today. -- Daniel Gustafsson