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

From Ajin Cherian
Subject Re: missing documentation for streaming in-progress transactions
Date
Msg-id CAFPTHDZ-COtRseZ41HRRPqekD-MWgD5WpJFNLkDzA16fMqtcVg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: missing documentation for streaming in-progress transactions  ("Euler Taveira" <euler@eulerto.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 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. 

regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Why is Query NOT getting cancelled with SIGINT in PG14?
Next
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: Why is Query NOT getting cancelled with SIGINT in PG14?