On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 at 01:42, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 16:02, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:58 AM Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > > >> Makes sense. I will do this soon if nobody objects. > > >> > > >> I'm mildly uncomfortable with the phrase "WAL records generated over > > >> the delay period" because it seems a bit imprecise, but I'm not sure > > >> what would be better and I think the meaning is clear. > > > > > > Maybe "during" instead of "over"? But I'm not sure that's the part you're > > > referring to? > > > > Yeah, something like that, maybe. > > I share your discomfort with the wording. How about: > > WAL records must be kept on standby until they are ready to be applied. > Therefore, longer delays will result in a greater accumulation of WAL files, > increasing disk space requirements for the standby's <filename>pg_wal</> > directory.
*must be kept on the standby -- Thom
