On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Shulgin, Oleksandr
<oleksandr.shulgin@zalando.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28 January 2016 at 16:36, Shulgin, Oleksandr
>> <oleksandr.shulgin@zalando.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We should change also START_REPLICATION SLOT syntax document as follows?
>>>>
>>>> - <para><literal>START_REPLICATION SLOT
>>>> <replaceable>slot_name</replaceable> LOGICAL
>>>> <replaceable>options</replaceable></literal></para>
>>>> + <para><literal>START_REPLICATION SLOT
>>>> <replaceable>slot_name</replaceable> LOGICAL
>>>> <replaceable>XXX/XXX</replaceable>
>>>> (<replaceable>options</replaceable>)</literal></para>
>>>
>>>
>>> If a committer would thinks so, I don't object. Though this one is
>>> rather a detail for which the reader is already referred to
>>> protocol-replication, while my fix was about a factual error.
>>>
>>
>> I think it should be changed. I've already had people confused by this.
>>
>> Either that or remove the synopsis entirely, changing it to
>>
>> START_REPLICATION SLOT ....
>>
>> and linking to the protocol docs. Which might be better.
>
> I think it still makes sense to keep the LOGICAL, but hide the rest of the
> details behind that ellipsis, so:
>
> START_REPLICATION SLOT slot_name LOGICAL ...
>
> Updated patch attached.
Okay, pushed. Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
