Re: doc: clarify wal_sender_shutdown_timeout behavior for small values

> On 17 Jul 2026, at 12:00, Fujii Masao  wrote:

> This is docs, not error message, but as error message style guide suggests,
> the word "non-negative" basically should be avoided since it's ambiguous
> about whether it accepts zero?

Yes, "non-negative" should absolutely be avoided.

> If we document what a value of 0 means, isn't it better to add a brief
> description about the value 0 to postgresql.conf.sample and guc_parameters.dat
> as well?

I think the bigger picture here is that IMO a user can be forgiven for thinking
at -1 and 0 are equal based on this sentence:

	"A value of -1 (the default) disables the timeout
	mechanism"

To me as a non-native speaker reading that a timeout is disabled can be
interpreted as if there is no waiting done, just like the in the case of 0.  +1
on documenting that 0 means immediate shutdown (though that is sort of implied)
but I think we at the same time should expand the above sentence to clarify
that -1 means waiting.  After reading the docs I had to read the code to be
sure I had it right.

--
Daniel Gustafsson