Sync rep doc corrections

I've attached a small patch with a bit of clarification and a typo fix
in the synchronous_standby_names parameter info.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

On 7 March 2011 15:27, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> I've attached a small patch with a bit of clarification and a typo fix
> in the synchronous_standby_names parameter info.

Okay, I've noticed that the main documentation also needed some fixes,
so those have been included in this new patch.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> On 7 March 2011 15:27, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>> I've attached a small patch with a bit of clarification and a typo fix
>> in the synchronous_standby_names parameter info.
>
> Okay, I've noticed that the main documentation also needed some fixes,
> so those have been included in this new patch.

I don't think it's necessary to cross-post these emails....

I've applied all of this but the first hunk, which I don't believe to
be correct.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 7 March 2011 22:31, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 7 March 2011 15:27, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I've attached a small patch with a bit of clarification and a typo fix
>>> in the synchronous_standby_names parameter info.
>>
>> Okay, I've noticed that the main documentation also needed some fixes,
>> so those have been included in this new patch.
>
> I don't think it's necessary to cross-post these emails....

I've received conflicting information in the past on this, but I'm
assuming you're suggesting to send this just to the -docs list in
future?

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 10:53:17PM +0530, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 7 March 2011 22:31, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> >> On 7 March 2011 15:27, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> I've attached a small patch with a bit of clarification and a typo fix
> >>> in the synchronous_standby_names parameter info.
> >>
> >> Okay, I've noticed that the main documentation also needed some fixes,
> >> so those have been included in this new patch.
> >
> > I don't think it's necessary to cross-post these emails....
>
> I've received conflicting information in the past on this, but I'm
> assuming you're suggesting to send this just to the -docs list in
> future?

As I'm putting together the patches section for the PostgreSQL Weekly
News, it helps me *enormously* to have only one list I need to check,
so at least for me, it's an enormous help to have all patches at least
CC'd, or better still, only posted, to -hackers.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

On 7 March 2011 23:21, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 10:53:17PM +0530, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 7 March 2011 22:31, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>> >> On 7 March 2011 15:27, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>> >>> I've attached a small patch with a bit of clarification and a typo fix
>> >>> in the synchronous_standby_names parameter info.
>> >>
>> >> Okay, I've noticed that the main documentation also needed some fixes,
>> >> so those have been included in this new patch.
>> >
>> > I don't think it's necessary to cross-post these emails....
>>
>> I've received conflicting information in the past on this, but I'm
>> assuming you're suggesting to send this just to the -docs list in
>> future?
>
> As I'm putting together the patches section for the PostgreSQL Weekly
> News, it helps me *enormously* to have only one list I need to check,
> so at least for me, it's an enormous help to have all patches at least
> CC'd, or better still, only posted, to -hackers.

I cross-posted as it's a docs change, but I want to invite the
critical eye of those who dev'd it. Okay, so doc patches should go
exclusively to the -hackers list? Last time I recall some disparity
surrounding what I should be doing.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 11:34:48PM +0530, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 7 March 2011 23:21, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 10:53:17PM +0530, Thom Brown wrote:
> >> On 7 March 2011 22:31, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> >> >> On 7 March 2011 15:27, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> >> >>> I've attached a small patch with a bit of clarification and a typo fix
> >> >>> in the synchronous_standby_names parameter info.
> >> >>
> >> >> Okay, I've noticed that the main documentation also needed some fixes,
> >> >> so those have been included in this new patch.
> >> >
> >> > I don't think it's necessary to cross-post these emails....
> >>
> >> I've received conflicting information in the past on this, but I'm
> >> assuming you're suggesting to send this just to the -docs list in
> >> future?
> >
> > As I'm putting together the patches section for the PostgreSQL Weekly
> > News, it helps me *enormously* to have only one list I need to check,
> > so at least for me, it's an enormous help to have all patches at least
> > CC'd, or better still, only posted, to -hackers.
>
> I cross-posted as it's a docs change, but I want to invite the
> critical eye of those who dev'd it. Okay, so doc patches should go
> exclusively to the -hackers list? Last time I recall some disparity
> surrounding what I should be doing.

"Should" is a word I won't get into on this subject. I was expressing
and justifying a personal preference :)

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> On 7 March 2011 23:21, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 10:53:17PM +0530, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> On 7 March 2011 22:31, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>>> >> On 7 March 2011 15:27, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>>> >>> I've attached a small patch with a bit of clarification and a typo fix
>>> >>> in the synchronous_standby_names parameter info.
>>> >>
>>> >> Okay, I've noticed that the main documentation also needed some fixes,
>>> >> so those have been included in this new patch.
>>> >
>>> > I don't think it's necessary to cross-post these emails....
>>>
>>> I've received conflicting information in the past on this, but I'm
>>> assuming you're suggesting to send this just to the -docs list in
>>> future?
>>
>> As I'm putting together the patches section for the PostgreSQL Weekly
>> News, it helps me *enormously* to have only one list I need to check,
>> so at least for me, it's an enormous help to have all patches at least
>> CC'd, or better still, only posted, to -hackers.
>
> I cross-posted as it's a docs change, but I want to invite the
> critical eye of those who dev'd it.  Okay, so doc patches should go
> exclusively to the -hackers list?  Last time I recall some disparity
> surrounding what I should be doing.

I'm not sure we have any unanimity on what the "right" thing to do
here is, and I guess I don't *really* care, except that I mildly
dislike cross-posting as a general principle.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> writes:
> On 7 March 2011 23:21, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
>> As I'm putting together the patches section for the PostgreSQL Weekly
>> News, it helps me *enormously* to have only one list I need to check,
>> so at least for me, it's an enormous help to have all patches at least
>> CC'd, or better still, only posted, to -hackers.

I'm not certain that David's convenience should be the exclusive
consideration when deciding what goes where ;-)

> I cross-posted as it's a docs change, but I want to invite the
> critical eye of those who dev'd it. Okay, so doc patches should go
> exclusively to the -hackers list? Last time I recall some disparity
> surrounding what I should be doing.

If we do that then it becomes worth wondering what the -docs list is for
at all. Maybe we *should* get rid of it; I dunno. I see your point
about how the factual issues involved in a docs change ought to be
vetted on -hackers, but on the other hand the traffic on -hackers is so
high already that I'm not happy about folding another list with a
reasonably distinct charter into it.

regards, tom lane

Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun mar 07 15:16:31 -0300 2011:

> If we do that then it becomes worth wondering what the -docs list is for
> at all. Maybe we *should* get rid of it; I dunno. I see your point
> about how the factual issues involved in a docs change ought to be
> vetted on -hackers, but on the other hand the traffic on -hackers is so
> high already that I'm not happy about folding another list with a
> reasonably distinct charter into it.

Searching for doc changes/suggestions is helped tremendously by having
them in a separate list. -1 for merging it with -hackers. I have no
opinion on the -hackers crossposting issue as it doesn't affect me at
all.

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 03:45:17PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun mar 07 15:16:31 -0300 2011:
>
> > If we do that then it becomes worth wondering what the -docs list is for
> > at all. Maybe we *should* get rid of it; I dunno. I see your point
> > about how the factual issues involved in a docs change ought to be
> > vetted on -hackers, but on the other hand the traffic on -hackers is so
> > high already that I'm not happy about folding another list with a
> > reasonably distinct charter into it.
>
> Searching for doc changes/suggestions is helped tremendously by having
> them in a separate list. -1 for merging it with -hackers. I have no
> opinion on the -hackers crossposting issue as it doesn't affect me at
> all.

Definitely don't merge. Crossposting, I think, should be reserved for
significant factual changes to docs of features that are in current
development, like ... syncrep. :-) Basically, keep docs work on docs,
but cross-post to hackers when a cross-check is needed. Don't routinely
crosspost, lest that train hackers to ignore the docs posts. After all,
we insist that developers of patches submit docs: correct documentation
is a valid concern for all developers.

Ross
P.S. Everyone is aware of the settings for majordomo, so you only get
one of any crosspost, right?
--
Ross Reedstrom, Ph.D. reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu
Systems Engineer & Admin, Research Scientist phone: 713-348-6166
Connexions http://cnx.org fax: 713-348-3665
Rice University MS-375, Houston, TX 77005
GPG Key fingerprint = F023 82C8 9B0E 2CC6 0D8E F888 D3AE 810E 88F0 BEDE

On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 01:01:05PM -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 03:45:17PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun mar 07 15:16:31 -0300
> > 2011:
> >
> > > If we do that then it becomes worth wondering what the -docs
> > > list is for at all. Maybe we *should* get rid of it; I dunno.
> > > I see your point about how the factual issues involved in a docs
> > > change ought to be vetted on -hackers, but on the other hand the
> > > traffic on -hackers is so high already that I'm not happy about
> > > folding another list with a reasonably distinct charter into it.
> >
> > Searching for doc changes/suggestions is helped tremendously by
> > having them in a separate list. -1 for merging it with -hackers.
> > I have no opinion on the -hackers crossposting issue as it doesn't
> > affect me at all.
>
> Definitely don't merge. Crossposting, I think, should be reserved
> for significant factual changes to docs of features that are in
> current development, like ... syncrep. :-) Basically, keep docs work
> on docs, but cross-post to hackers when a cross-check is needed.
> Don't routinely crosspost, lest that train hackers to ignore the
> docs posts. After all, we insist that developers of patches submit
> docs: correct documentation is a valid concern for all developers.
>
> Ross P.S. Everyone is aware of the settings for majordomo, so you
> only get one of any crosspost, right?

It's not that simple. If it were, I wouldn't have been asking for
this in the first place.

Re: docs, I'd actually like to see that list gone, as the separation
of docs from code is one that's actively unhelpful. We don't have a
separate "docs" team, and we rightly put the responsibility of
documenting changes on the person or people patching them in.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

On 3/7/11 11:07 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> Re: docs, I'd actually like to see that list gone, as the separation
> of docs from code is one that's actively unhelpful. We don't have a
> separate "docs" team, and we rightly put the responsibility of
> documenting changes on the person or people patching them in.

The -hackers list has enough traffic as it is.

And if we don't have docs contributors who aren't code contributors (and
I think we do), then that's a problem to be solved, not casually accepted.

--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> Re: docs, I'd actually like to see that list gone, as the separation
> of docs from code is one that's actively unhelpful.  We don't have a
> separate "docs" team, and we rightly put the responsibility of
> documenting changes on the person or people patching them in.

You're in the minority on this one.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 02:31:18PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> > Re: docs, I'd actually like to see that list gone, as the separation
> > of docs from code is one that's actively unhelpful.  We don't have a
> > separate "docs" team, and we rightly put the responsibility of
> > documenting changes on the person or people patching them in.
>
> You're in the minority on this one.

It happens, but I keep speaking up anyhow. Minority status isn't
always permanent. :)

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

On 8 March 2011 01:08, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 02:31:18PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
>> > Re: docs, I'd actually like to see that list gone, as the separation
>> > of docs from code is one that's actively unhelpful.  We don't have a
>> > separate "docs" team, and we rightly put the responsibility of
>> > documenting changes on the person or people patching them in.
>>
>> You're in the minority on this one.
>
> It happens, but I keep speaking up anyhow.  Minority status isn't
> always permanent. :)

Okay, to avoid any -hackers list noise, I'll exclusively send them to
-docs in future, with the exception of replying to -committers or
-hackers when a commit/patch contains fail.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Thom Brown wrote:
> On 7 March 2011 22:31, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> >> On 7 March 2011 15:27, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> I've attached a small patch with a bit of clarification and a typo fix
> >>> in the synchronous_standby_names parameter info.
> >>
> >> Okay, I've noticed that the main documentation also needed some fixes,
> >> so those have been included in this new patch.
> >
> > I don't think it's necessary to cross-post these emails....
>
> I've received conflicting information in the past on this, but I'm
> assuming you're suggesting to send this just to the -docs list in
> future?

I send pure woring changes only to the docs list, and items that are
related to behavior and docs to both. Does that help?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 7 March 2011 22:31, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>> >> On 7 March 2011 15:27, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>> >>> I've attached a small patch with a bit of clarification and a typo fix
>> >>> in the synchronous_standby_names parameter info.
>> >>
>> >> Okay, I've noticed that the main documentation also needed some fixes,
>> >> so those have been included in this new patch.
>> >
>> > I don't think it's necessary to cross-post these emails....
>>
>> I've received conflicting information in the past on this, but I'm
>> assuming you're suggesting to send this just to the -docs list in
>> future?
>
> I send pure woring changes only to the docs list, and items that are
> related to behavior and docs to both.  Does that help?

Well, there's basically no point in posting patches you've already
committed. We have a list where those get posted, and it's
-committers. If you're referring to patches you haven't committed
yet, then the effect of sending them to both -docs and -hackers is
presumably to encourage even fewer people to read and respond to
traffic on -docs than already do.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company