Subject: Re: Typo in description of replay_lag attribute in
 pg_stat_replication view
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
 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>
 <0cfde408-a360-3461-124c-cfa0c72e3b0d@gmail.com>
 <20181205010455.GA2407@paquier.xyz>
From: Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f4d5982d-5bbe-d8bd-9e99-829e5c31ed40@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 10:52:27 +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: <20181205010455.GA2407@paquier.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk

05.12.2018 4:04, Michael Paquier wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:24:22AM +0300, Maksim Milyutin wrote:
>> 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*?
> I am not sure that this is an improvement.  Anyway, I have committed
> your original patch as that's clearly a mistake and back-patched down to
> v10.


Ok, thanks.

-- 
Regards,
Maksim Milyutin