Re: Small doc patch for pg_replication_slots

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Thomas Reiss <thomas(dot)reiss(at)dalibo(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Small doc patch for pg_replication_slots
Date: 2014-05-01 02:56:52
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYmf7bA47br3H+nxyPe9Kk9FAD-J7pWFwWvGAdGB-+iWw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Thomas Reiss <thomas(dot)reiss(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
> You can find attached a small patch to fix the pg_replication_slots
> documentation. The slot_type and plugin are not in the appropriate
> order, slot_name and plugin have a wrong type and xmin appears two times.

Without the patch, the description of catalog_xmin is:

<entry>The <literal>xmin</literal>, or oldest transaction ID, that this
slot forces to be retained in the system catalogs. </entry>

With the patch it's:

<entry>The oldest transaction that this slot needs the database to
retain. <literal>VACUUM</literal> cannot remove catalog tuples deleted
by any later transaction.

That's only one word different from the language for xmin, which
doesn't seem quite right. Committed after fixing that.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2014-05-01 03:56:41 Re: hooks not working in postgresql 9.3 (building from source)
Previous Message Gavin Flower 2014-05-01 00:33:51 Re: Display of timestamp in pg_dump custom format