Re: minor replication slot docs edits

On 2024-Jan-16, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:

> Thanks for the patch. The wording looks good to me. However, I have
> some comments on the placement of the note:
>
> 1. How about bundling this in a <note> </note> or <caution> </caution>?

Yeah, I considered this too, but I discarded the idea because my
impression of <caution> and <note> was that they attract too much
attention off the main text; it should be the other way around. But
that's not really something for this patch to solve, and we use
<caution> boxes in many other places and nobody complains about this.
So I made it a <caution>.

> 2. I think the better place for this note is at the end after the
> "Similarly, <xref linkend="guc-hot-standby-feedback"/> on its own,
> without" paragraph. It will then be like we introduce what replication
> slot is and why it is better over other mechanisms to retain WAL and
> then caution the users of it retaining WAL.

Makes sense.

I have pushed it. I made one other terminology change from "primary" to
"primary server", but only in that subsection. We use "primary" as a
standalone term extensively in other sections of this chapter, and I
don't like it very much, but I didn't want to make this more invasive.

Another thing I noticed is that we could change all (or most of) the
<varname> tags to <xref linkend="guc-..."/>, but it's also a much larger
change. Having (some of?) these variable names be links would be useful
IMO.

--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/