Re: DOCS - pg_replication_slot . Fix the 'inactive_since' description

On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 01:31:45PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 12:24 PM Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > -- inactive_since will be reset to NULL by the process that acquires
> > the slot, making it active or in-use again.
> >
> > AFAIU, inactive_since indicates the point in time when the slot became
> > inactive, as the field is set immediately when any of the above
> > conditions are triggered. It is not a case where a periodic process
> > observes the slot as inactive and sets inactive_since to the "observed
> > time", even if the slot was deactivated some time ago.
> >
> > Given this understanding, and to avoid unnecessary complexity, I agree
> > with David's suggestion [1]:
> >
> > - The time when the slot became inactive. (retained this in patch as
> > wording aligns with the field name)
> > - The time when the slot was deactivated.
> >
> > Alternatively, we could use "timestamp" instead of "time" to clearly
> > indicate that this refers to a specific timestamp and not a duration:
> > "The timestamp indicating when the slot became inactive."
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > For the description of synced slots on standby, I’m fine with keeping
> > Bruce's suggestion from patch [2] as it is.
> >
> > Attached the patch with modification.
> >
>
> Looks reasonable to me.

+1

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

When a patient asks the doctor, "Am I going to die?", he means
"Am I going to die soon?"