Thread: Re: DOCS - inactive_since field readability
On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 12:05 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I've had a go at rewording this paragraph in the 0002 patch.
>
The change in 0001 looks odd after seeing it in HTML format. We should
either add one empty line between two paragraphs otherwise it doesn't
appear good. Did you see multi-paragraphs in any other column
definitions?
For the 0002 patch, I find the following changes as improvements,
*
<para>
- Note that for slots on the standby
to
+ For standby slots
*
On standby, this is useful for slots
- that are being synced from a primary server (whose
- <structfield>synced</structfield> field is <literal>true</literal>)
- so they know when the slot stopped being synchronized.
to
This helps standby slots
+ track when synchronization was interrupted.
Other than that, I find the current wording okay.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 4:04 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:10 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > ... > > The change in 0001 looks odd after seeing it in HTML format. We should > > either add one empty line between two paragraphs otherwise it doesn't > > appear good. Did you see multi-paragraphs in any other column > > definitions? > > > > Patch 0001 > > The pg_replication_slots system view is unusual in that there can be > entirely different descriptions of the same field depending on the > context, such as: > a- for logical slots > b- for physical slots > c- for primary servers versus standby servers > > IIUC your 0001 feedback says that a blank line might be ok, but just > doing it for 'active_since' and nothing else makes it look odd. > No, I meant to say that the description didn't looked any better to me even after your 0001 patch. The second paragraph started immediately in the next line which doesn't make it look any better. If we really want to make it look better then one more additional line is required. However, I don't want to go in that direction unless we have some history of writing the docs similarly. I suggest let's go with your 0002 patch as that makes the description concise and clear. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 2:06 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 4:06 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > ... > > > > No, I meant to say that the description didn't looked any better to me > > even after your 0001 patch. The second paragraph started immediately > > in the next line which doesn't make it look any better. If we really > > want to make it look better then one more additional line is required. > > However, I don't want to go in that direction unless we have some > > history of writing the docs similarly. I suggest let's go with your > > 0002 patch as that makes the description concise and clear. > > > > OK. My blank lines patch has been abandoned. Here is just the > 'inactive_since' description patch (now called 0001). > Looks good to me. I'll push this tomorrow unless there are any further comments/suggestions. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.