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

From Euler Taveira
Subject Re: missing documentation for streaming in-progress transactions
Date
Msg-id d01e595a-a465-495b-b166-a60125abcd5c@www.fastmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: missing documentation for streaming in-progress transactions  (Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: missing documentation for streaming in-progress transactions  (Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021, at 4:25 AM, Ajin Cherian wrote:
Updated.

-       Protocol version. Currently only version <literal>1</literal> is
-       supported.
-      </para>
+       Protocol version. Currently versions <literal>1</literal> and
+       <literal>2</literal> are supported. The version <literal>2</literal>
+       is supported only for server versions 14 and above, and is used to allow
+       streaming of large in-progress transactions.
+     </para>

s/server versions/server version/

I suggest that the last part of the sentence might be "and it allows streaming
of large in-progress transactions"

+              Since: 2
+</para>
+<para>

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.

+                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.


--
Euler Taveira

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Simplify backend terminate and wait logic in postgres_fdw test
Next
From: "kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Tracking statements entry timestamp in pg_stat_statements