Re: Documentation: warn about two_phase when altering a subscription - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bertrand Drouvot
Subject Re: Documentation: warn about two_phase when altering a subscription
Date
Msg-id ZdxWX2hmEi82yOew@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Documentation: warn about two_phase when altering a subscription  (Tristen Raab <tristen.raab@highgo.ca>)
Responses Re: Documentation: warn about two_phase when altering a subscription
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 11:50:17PM +0000, Tristen Raab wrote:
> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
> make installcheck-world:  not tested
> Implements feature:       tested, passed
> Spec compliant:           not tested
> Documentation:            tested, passed
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I've reviewed your patch,

Thanks!

> it applies correctly and the documentation builds without any errors. As for the content of the patch itself, I think
sofar it's good but would make two modifications. I like how the patch was worded originally when referring to the
subscription,stating these parameters were 'in' the subscription rather than 'by' it. So I'd propose changing
 
> 
> > parameters specified by the subscription. When creating the slot, ensure
> 
> to 
> 
> > parameters specified in the subscription. When creating the slot, ensure

As non native English speaker I don't have a strong opinion on that (though I
also preferred how it was worded in V1).

> 
> and secondly the section "ensure the slot properties failover and two_phase match their counterpart parameters of the
subscription"sounds a bit clunky. So I'd also propose changing:
 
> 
> > the slot properties <literal>failover</literal> and <literal>two_phase</literal>
> > match their counterpart parameters of the subscription.
> 
> to
> 
> > the slot properties <literal>failover</literal> and <literal>two_phase</literal>
> > match their counterpart parameters in the subscription.

Same here, I don't have a strong opinion on that.

As the patch as it is now looks good to Amit (see [1]), I prefer to let him
decide which wording he pefers to push.

> I feel this makes the description flow a bit better when reading. But other than that I think it's quite clear.

Thanks!

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1KdZMtJfo%3DK%3DXWsQQu8OHutT_dwJV2D3zs4h9g5zdNz2A%40mail.gmail.com

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Andrey M. Borodin"
Date:
Subject: Re: Injection points: some tools to wait and wake
Next
From: Josef Šimánek
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add --syntax to postgres for SQL syntax checking