Hi, On 2023-11-14 17:49:59 +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2023-Nov-13, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2023-11-13 12:31:42 +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > On 2023-Nov-09, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > doc: fix wording describing the checkpoint_flush_after GUC > > > > > > Hmm. Is this new wording really more clear than the original wording? > > > I agree the original may not have been the most simple, but I don't > > > think it was wrong English. > > > > I think it was somewhat wrong (I probably wrote it) or at least awkwardly > > formulated. "force the OS that pages .. should be flushed" doesn't make a > > ton > > of sense. > > Heh, you know what? I was mistaken. There was indeed a grammatical > error being fixed. The complaint [1] was that "you" was missing in the > sentence, and apparently that's correct [2].
> [1] > https://postgr.es/m/155208475619.1380.12815553062985622...@wrigleys.postgresql.org > [2] https://english.stackexchange.com/a/60285 Hm, I really can't get excited about this. To me the "you" sounds worse, but whatever... > > OTOH, the new formulation doesn't seem great either. The request(s) that we > > make to the OS are not guaranteed to be followed, so the "should be" was > > actually a correct part of the sentence. > > Hmm, I hadn't noticed that nuance. Your text looks OK to me, except > that "... after a configurable number of bytes" reads odd after what's > already in the sentence. I would rewrite it in a different form, maybe > > On Linux and POSIX platforms, checkpoint_flush_after specifies the > number of bytes written by a checkpoint after which the OS is requested > to flush pages to disk. Otherwise, these pages ... That works for me! Greetings, Andres Freund
