> On 25 Apr 2024, at 18:16, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 3:08 PM Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> wrote: >> LGTM; only one small comment which you can ignore if you feel it's not worth >> the extra words. >> >> + <literal>pg_combinebackup</literal> when the checksum status of the >> + cluster has been changed; see >> >> I would have preferred that this sentence included the problematic period for >> the change, perhaps "..has been changed after the initial backup." or ideally >> something even better. In other words, clarifying that if checksums were >> enabled before any backups were taken this limitation is not in play. It's >> not >> critical as the link aptly documents this, it just seems like the sentence is >> cut short. > > This was somewhat deliberate.
Given your reasoning below, +1 on the patch you proposed. > I think the user will probably still get the > point, but I also think they'll probably get the point without the > extra verbiage. I think that it will be natural for people to imagine > that what matters is not whether the checksum status has ever changed, > but whether it has changed within the relevant time period, whatever > that is exactly. Fair enough. > Again, this is not to say that what you're proposing is necessarily > wrong; I'm just explaining my own thinking. Gotcha, much appreciated. -- Daniel Gustafsson
