From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Christoph Moench-Tegeder <cmt(at)burggraben(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 9.4 documentation: duplicate paragraph in logical decoding example |
Date: | 2014-07-07 05:23:44 |
Message-ID: | 20140707052344.GE17261@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-07-07 12:50:17 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Christoph Moench-Tegeder
> <cmt(at)burggraben(dot)net> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > while reading the logical decoding docs, I came across a duplicated
> > paragraph in doc/src/sgml/logicaldecoding.sgml - in the current
> > master branch, lines 108 to 115 are the same as lines 117 to 124.
> > I've attached a patch which removes the second instance of that
> > paragraph.
> > In case it is intended to demonstrate that the changes in the stream
> > were not consumed by pg_logical_slot_peek_changes(),
>
> I didn't write that text, but I think that's the reason why the same
> texts exist.
It was me... I was being cute^Wtired^Wuhhh and thought the duplicated
content would demonstrate that nothing has happened due to the decoding
stream.
But since you're now the second person confused by it I guess we better
rephrase it.
> > reworded like "the changes have
> > not been consumed by the previous command", just to avoid making
> > it look like that paragraph had been duplicated by accident :)
>
> I'm OK with this.
Care to submit a patch for it Christoph?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2014-07-07 06:00:44 | Extending constraint exclusion for implied constraints/conditions |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-07-07 05:14:21 | Re: [RFC: bug fix?] Connection attempt block forever when the synchronous standby is not running |