Re: DOCS - inactive_since field readability

On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 4:04 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:10 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)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.