| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: doc: Make logical replication examples executable in bulk and legal sgml. |
| Date: | 2025-05-27 03:21:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LA1WDL=Mg6Bh_hUxv66DkRdM2UkPAwaS5KJ+jt5YL2Hw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 10:52 AM David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 22, 2025, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 9:33 PM David G. Johnston
>> <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> >
>> > While responding to a "our documentation is buggy" complaint I got annoyed in my attempt to reproduce the behavior by having to surgically copy line-by-line the DDL and DML code involved. Let's strive for a more copy-paste friendly example setup. No prompts and no interspersed command tags (they are ok if the script is one block and the output is another).
>> >
>>
>> That's a valid point. Since this is not a correctness issue, I am less
>> inclined to backpatch. What do you or others think?
>
>
> Agreed, this would not be back-patched.
>
Yesterday, I pushed the patch. Thanks for working on this.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yugo Nagata | 2025-05-27 03:30:39 | Re: Prevent internal error at concurrent CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION |
| Previous Message | Quan Zongliang | 2025-05-27 03:06:46 | Standardize the definition of the subtype field of AlterDomainStmt |