From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | samay sharma <smilingsamay(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PGDOCS - Logical replication GUCs - added some xrefs |
Date: | 2022-12-12 22:06:51 |
Message-ID: | CAHut+Pvu9v-4OLJKoBmA-gGqDdDBQ58mtcnxDUrD=Q-DgAzWmw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 6:25 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2022-Dec-07, samay sharma wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 11:12 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > > OK. I copied the tablesync note back to config.sgml definition of
> > > 'max_replication_slots' and removed the link as suggested. Frankly, I
> > > also thought it is a bit strange that the max_replication_slots in the
> > > “Sending Servers” section was describing this parameter for
> > > “Subscribers”. OTOH, I did not want to split the definition in half so
> > > instead, I’ve added another Subscriber <varlistentry> that just refers
> > > back to this place. It looks like an improvement to me.
> >
> > Hmm, I agree this is a tricky scenario. However, to me, it seems odd to
> > mention the parameter twice as this chapter of the docs just lists each
> > parameter and describes them. So, I'd probably remove the reference to it
> > in the subscriber section. We should describe it's usage in different
> > places in the logical replication part of the docs (as we do).
>
> I agree this is tricky. However, because they essentially have
> completely different behaviors on each side, and because we're
> documenting each side separately, to me it makes more sense to document
> each behavior separately, so I've split it. I also added mention at
> each side that the other one exists. My rationale is that a user is
> likely going to search for stuff to set on one side first, then for
> stuff to set on the other side. So doing it this way maximizes
> helpfulness (or so I hope anyway). I also added a separate index entry.
>
LGTM. Thank you for pushing this.
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2022-12-12 22:21:25 | Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |
Previous Message | Nikita Malakhov | 2022-12-12 21:26:15 | Re: ALTER TABLE uses a bistate but not for toast tables |