Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:47:47 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: =?utf-8?B?0JzQsNC60YHQuNC8INCv0LHQu9C+0LrQvtCy?=
 <m.yablokov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 15 minor documentation improvements
Message-ID: <Yv22Y1k337qWLb2g@paquier.xyz>
References: <b47ec4e8-6f6a-2aba-038e-d5db150b245e@postgrespro.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="RRrTvNa9bKzTBMtG"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b47ec4e8-6f6a-2aba-038e-d5db150b245e@postgrespro.ru>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Yv22Y1k337qWLb2g%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--RRrTvNa9bKzTBMtG
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 06:09:13PM +0300, =D0=9C=D0=B0=D0=BA=D1=81=D0=B8=D0=
=BC =D0=AF=D0=B1=D0=BB=D0=BE=D0=BA=D0=BE=D0=B2 wrote:
> I have prepared a small patch with possible changes of these places, and
> also a separate patch with some improvements concerning missed/inapt tags.
> Please have a look.

archive_command is used only when archive_library is not set AFAIK,
but an archive_library could also freely use an archive_command if it
wishes to.  But, yes, I agree that the current wording in backup.sgml
is kind of confusing because of this reason, so I am fine to have a
reference to both archive_library *and* archive_command in this area
of the docs.

     All WAL records required for the backup must contain sufficient full-p=
age writes,
     which requires you to enable <varname>full_page_writes</varname> on th=
e primary and
-    not to use a tool in your <varname>archive_library</varname> to remove
-    full-page writes from WAL files.
+    not to use a tool to remove full-page writes from WAL files.

Hmm.  My opinion here is to do a simplification, and remove simply the
last part of the paragraph about tools that manipulate WAL files
as the first sentence makes it clear, in my opinion, that if those
FPWs are not around the server could become kaput.

Most of the changes in PGSQL15_tags_fix.patch seem right to me.
Still, you'd better check that the docs compile, as of:

> --- a/doc/src/sgml/basebackup-to-shell.sgml
> +++ b/doc/src/sgml/basebackup-to-shell.sgml
> @@ -12,9 +12,9 @@
>    called <literal>shell</literal>. This makes it possible to run
>    <literal>pg_basebackup --target=3Dshell</literal> or, depending on how=
 this
>    module is configured,
> -  <literal>pg_basebackup --target=3Dshell:DETAIL_STRING</literal>, and c=
ause
> -  a server command chosen by the server administrator to be executed for
> -  each tar archive generated by the backup process. The command will rec=
eive
> +  <literal>pg_basebackup --target=3Dshell:<replaceable>DETAIL_STRING<rep=
laceable></literal>,

I am pretty sure that this line is going to cause a compilation
failure of the docs.  Anyway, this should be use a <command> markup,
no?
--
Michael

--RRrTvNa9bKzTBMtG
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=Lkq+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--RRrTvNa9bKzTBMtG--