Feedback-ID: ie3de48e3:Fastmail
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2026 11:14:03 +0200
From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
To: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>,
	Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>,
 Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: fixes for a few GUC descriptions
Message-ID: <aqPFjLQs5KzqAiCl@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <DB0C90EE-0485-405E-80D5-A1A6703E52C8@gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aqPFjLQs5KzqAiCl%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2026-Sep-11, Chao Li wrote:

> > On Sep 11, 2026, at 08:54, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:

> > -  long_desc => '-1 disables the timeout and waits for the receiver to
> > catch up; 0 does not wait for the receiver to catch up.',
> > +  long_desc => '-1 disables the timeout. 0 means do not wait for the
> > receiver to catch up.',

> 
> Yeah, here -1 is really more like “wait forever”, so just saying “disables the timeout” feels like it loses that distinction.

Maybe it should say "0 means do not wait, -1 means wait indefinitely."
This complements the short_desc,

  Sets the maximum time the server waits during shutdown for all WAL data
  to be replicated to the receiver.

I think the words "for the receiver to catch up" is somehow at odds with
the short_desc's "for all WAL data to be replicated".  They should be
saying the same thing, but aren't.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Si no sabes adonde vas, es muy probable que acabes en otra parte.