From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
To: nathandbossart@gmail.com
Cc: robertmhaas@gmail.com
Cc: masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: remove more archiving overhead
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 08:20:09 -0400
Message-ID: <44dbf5e4-8eec-da56-daba-755128b3723e@pgmasters.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220708.105652.1551158050191356887.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
References: <20220707182251.GA2255242@nathanxps13>
<ba7e11b0-054d-1d26-bafd-7a2bc97f11f7@pgmasters.net>
<20220707220716.GA2258527@nathanxps13>
<20220708.105652.1551158050191356887.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
On 7/7/22 21:56, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Thu, 7 Jul 2022 15:07:16 -0700, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote in
>> Here's an updated patch.
>
> Thinking RFC'ish, the meaning of "may" and "must" is significant in
> this description. On the other hand it uses both "may" and "can" but
> I thinkthat their difference is not significant or "can" there is
> somewhat confusing. I think the "can" should be "may" here.
+1.
> And since "must" is emphasized, doesn't "may" also needs emphasis?
I think emphasis only on must is fine.
Nathan, I don't see the language about being sure to persist to storage
here?
Regards,
-David
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: david@pgmasters.net, horikyota.ntt@gmail.com, nathandbossart@gmail.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com
Subject: Re: remove more archiving overhead
In-Reply-To: <44dbf5e4-8eec-da56-daba-755128b3723e@pgmasters.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox