misc doc fixes for REL_12_STABLE

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 05:49:26PM +0300, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:

Please consider a patch that fixes some trivial issues in new doc fragments
(a couple of typos/ambiguities and some tags that affect translation).

Thanks for the patch. I have one comment.

-     backups.  Moreover, because it writes a backup_label file on the
-     master, it can cause the master to fail to restart automatically after
-     a crash.  On the other hand, the erroneous removal of a backup_label
-     file from a backup or standby is a common mistake which can result
+     backups.  Moreover, because it creates a backup label file, as
+     described below, it can block automatic restart of the master server
+     after a crash. On the other hand, the erroneous removal of this
+     file from a backup or standby is a common mistake, which can result
in serious data corruption.  If it is necessary to use this method,
the following steps may be used.

Okay, yes that could be a bit confusing for the reader. Nit: I would
replace "master" with "primary" while we are in the area. What do you
think?

But that's the only comment I have, the rest looks good!
--
Michael

On 7/12/19 7:44 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 05:49:26PM +0300, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:

Please consider a patch that fixes some trivial issues in new doc fragments
(a couple of typos/ambiguities and some tags that affect translation).

Thanks for the patch. I have one comment.

-     backups.  Moreover, because it writes a backup_label file on the
-     master, it can cause the master to fail to restart automatically after
-     a crash.  On the other hand, the erroneous removal of a backup_label
-     file from a backup or standby is a common mistake which can result
+     backups.  Moreover, because it creates a backup label file, as
+     described below, it can block automatic restart of the master server
+     after a crash. On the other hand, the erroneous removal of this
+     file from a backup or standby is a common mistake, which can result
in serious data corruption.  If it is necessary to use this method,
the following steps may be used.

Okay, yes that could be a bit confusing for the reader. Nit: I would
replace "master" with "primary" while we are in the area. What do you
think?

But that's the only comment I have, the rest looks good!
--
Michael

Hi Michael,

Changing master to primary was my first inclination, but I saw that we
have 8 masters and 4 primaries here. So maybe we should have another
consistency patch (that probably goes beyond this chapter). I can
prepare one if you like.

P.S. I'm not particularly happy about this paragraph either, but that's
as far as I could get without twisting the original ideas.

--
Liudmila Mantrova
Technical writer at Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:35:49PM +0300, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:

Changing master to primary was my first inclination, but I saw that we have
8 masters and 4 primaries here. So maybe we should have another consistency
patch (that probably goes beyond this chapter). I can prepare one if you
like.

I have been looking at your patch again, and committed your
improvements as they were originally presented as my comment can apply
to much more places. Thanks!
--
Michael