Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict?
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+sC1t-GSLQqZYT9tbyjW1kg2V5Rgn=POuDPFywrapoTQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict?  (shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict?
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 1, 2024 at 12:32 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> PFA v3 after changing column name to 'conflict_reason'
>

Few minor comments:
===================
1.
+          <para>
+           <literal>wal_removed</literal> = required WAL has been removed.
+          </para>
+         </listitem>
+         <listitem>
+          <para>
+           <literal>rows_removed</literal> = required rows have been removed.
+          </para>
+         </listitem>
+         <listitem>
+          <para>
+           <literal>wal_level_insufficient</literal> = wal_level
insufficient on the primary server.
+          </para>

Should we use the same style to write the description as we are using
for the wal_status column? For example, <literal>wal_removed</literal>
means that the required WAL has been removed.

2.
+      <para>
+       The reason of logical slot's conflict with recovery.

My grammar tool says it should be: "The reason for the logical slot's
conflict with recovery."

Other than these minor comments, the patch looks good to me.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Update for copyright messages to 2024 (Happy New Year!)
Next
From: Ivan Kush
Date:
Subject: Re: Autonomous transactions 2023, WIP