Re: DOCS - inactive_since field readability

From: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: DOCS - inactive_since field readability
Date: 2025-02-16 20:35:46
Message-ID: CAHut+PtHzdJhRWiHv7e-mbjCoYbGrXa8Y+kP5CG_aLbgZN-8Jg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 4:06 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)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).

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia

Attachment Content-Type Size
v3-0001-DOCS-improve-pg_replication_slots.inactive_since-.patch application/octet-stream 1.7 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2025-02-16 20:55:10 Re: BackgroundPsql swallowing errors on windows
Previous Message Noah Misch 2025-02-16 18:47:40 Re: BackgroundPsql swallowing errors on windows