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

From shveta malik
Subject Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict?
Date
Msg-id CAJpy0uAY1w39n0dFAj_hxthqx=e-zR28ty8h6_U5jv-zvaYk1w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict?  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict?
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 1, 2024 at 4:30 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

PFA  v4 which addresses the doc comments.

thanks
Shveta

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ivan Kush
Date:
Subject: Re: Autonomous transactions 2023, WIP
Next
From: shveta malik
Date:
Subject: Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict?