On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:11 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 9:01 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
> >
> > > On 7 Sep 2021, at 13:36, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 12.08.21 04:52, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 5:42 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 11 Aug 2021, at 09:57, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Additionally, refresh options as described in
> > >>>> <replaceable>refresh_option</replaceable> of
> > >>>> <literal>REFRESH PUBLICATION</literal> may be specified,
> > >>>> except in the case of <literal>DROP PUBLICATION</literal>.
> > >>>
> > >>> Since this paragraph is under the literal option “refresh”, which takes a
> > >>> value, I still find your original patch to be the clearest.
> > >> Yeah, I prefer my original patch over this idea. On the other hand, I
> > >> can see the point of review comment on it that Amit pointed out[1].
> > >
> > > How about this:
> > >
> > > - Additionally, refresh options as described
> > > - under <literal>REFRESH PUBLICATION</literal> may be specified.
> > > + Additionally, the options described under <literal>REFRESH
> > > + PUBLICATION</literal> may be specified, to control the implicit refresh
> > > + operation.
> >
> > LGTM.
>
> +1
>
> Attached the patch.
>
LGTM as well. Peter E., Daniel, does any one of you is intending to
push this? If not, I can take care of this.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
