I was reading through the page and noticed this portion which didn't
sound quite right. I am hoping that I captured the original intent
correctly. Please let me know if something should be changed and/or
reflowed, since I am not sure what best practices are when editing the
docs. I did notice that this same wording issue has existed since
428b1d6.
--
Tristan Partin
Neon (https://neon.tech)
From 6fea7ef8c94022a68a9e14bf577480589e4fa32c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tristan Partin <tris...@neon.tech>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 15:27:31 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v1] Fix some wording in WAL docs
The sentence did not make sense as it was.
---
doc/src/sgml/wal.sgml | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/wal.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/wal.sgml
index 4aad0e1a07..41f31f5ba7 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/wal.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/wal.sgml
@@ -601,9 +601,9 @@
</para>
<para>
- On Linux and POSIX platforms <xref linkend="guc-checkpoint-flush-after"/>
- allows to force the OS that pages written by the checkpoint should be
- flushed to disk after a configurable number of bytes. Otherwise, these
+ On Linux and POSIX platforms, <xref linkend="guc-checkpoint-flush-after"/>
+ forces the OS to flush dirty pages written by the checkpoint to disk
+ after writing the configured number of bytes. Otherwise, these
pages may be kept in the OS's page cache, inducing a stall when
<literal>fsync</literal> is issued at the end of a checkpoint. This setting will
often help to reduce transaction latency, but it also can have an adverse
--
Tristan Partin
Neon (https://neon.tech)
