Re: missing documentation for streaming in-progress transactions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: missing documentation for streaming in-progress transactions
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1KTShNG-mpAtFGaOvYaYbUx43ynhJ_ZiPJGcQFVVZ0MmQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: missing documentation for streaming in-progress transactions  (Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: missing documentation for streaming in-progress transactions  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 8:29 AM Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 10:23 AM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I didn't like this style because it is not descriptive enough. It is also not a
>> style adopted by Postgres. I suggest to add something like "This field was
>> introduced in version 2" or "This field is available since version 2" after the
>> field description.
>
>
> I have updated this to  "Since protocol version 2"
>>
>>
>> +                Xid of the sub-transaction (will be same as xid of the transaction for top-level
>> +                transactions).
>> +</para>
>>
>> Although, sub-transaction is also used in the documentation, I suggest to use
>> subtransaction. Maybe change the other sub-transaction occurrences too.
>
>
> Updated.
>

I don't like repeating the same thing for all new messages. So added
separate para for the same and few other changes. See what do you
think of the attached?

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: PostmasterIsAlive() in recovery (non-USE_POST_MASTER_DEATH_SIGNAL builds)
Next
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_ls_tmpdir to show directories and shared filesets (and pg_ls_*)