Re: Wrong comment for ReplicationSlotCreate

> On Jan 5, 2026, at 13:51, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 9:46 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Daniil, Chao,
>>
>> I was the main author of 1462aad2. It is enough to remove outdated comments atop
>> the definition. In other words, your patch looks good to me.
>>
>> If needed, we can also notify developers that the two-phase option should not be
>> altered while decoding WAL records. In logical replication, we ensure that the
>> subscription is disabled and there are no apply workers. However, I don't think
>> such comments can be atop the ReplicationSlotCreate(). Maybe around
>> ReplicationSlotAlter(), but it may be out of scope of the initial motivation.
>>
>
> I think it is better if we add some comments atop
> ReplicationSlotAlter() as you are suggesting. What do you think of the
> attached?
>
> --
> With Regards,
> Amit Kapila.
> <v1_improve_alter_slot_comments.patch>

Hi Amit,

While reviewing your change, I find the other typo in slot.c:
```
- /* Check if the slot exits with the given name. */
+ /* Check if the slot exists with the given name. */
s = SearchNamedReplicationSlot(name, false);
if (s == NULL || !s->in_use)
```

“Exits” and “exists” have totally different meanings, thus might lead to misunderstanding. Attached is a trivial diff to fix that.

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/