On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 3:01 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hm, I really can't get excited about this. To me the "you" sounds worse, but
> whatever...
To me, it seems flat-out incorrect without the "you".
It might be better to rephrase the whole thing entirely so that it
doesn't need to address the
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
Hola-hallo,
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?
> >
Hi,
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
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'm not suggesting to revert
