Hi,
On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 10:43:14AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 9:14 AM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 5:47 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ----
> > >
> > > To summarize, the current description wrongly describes the field as a
> > > time duration:
> > > "The time since the slot has become inactive."
> > >
> > > I suggest replacing it with:
> > > "The slot has been inactive since this time."
> > >
> >
> > +1 for the change. If I had read the document without knowing about
> > the patch, I too would have interpreted it as a duration.
> >
>
> The suggested change looks good to me as well. I'll wait for a day or
> two before pushing to see if anyone thinks otherwise.
I'm not 100% convinced the current wording is confusing because:
- the field type is described as a "timestamptz".
- there is no duration unit in the wording (if we were to describe a duration,
we would probably add an unit to it, like "The time (in s)...").
That said, if we want to highlight that this is not a duration, what about?
"The time (not duration) since the slot has become inactive."
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
