| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniil Davydov <3danissimo(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Wrong comment for ReplicationSlotCreate |
| Date: | 2026-01-05 05:51:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Lx65R92cPpAdgQVcja-7R5835UMXpjtR8MmJro=bmq4A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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 It is enough to remove outdated comments atop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.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v1_improve_alter_slot_comments.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2026-01-05 05:55:55 | Re: [PATCH v1] replindex: Fix comment grammar in build_replindex_scan_key() |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2026-01-05 05:49:26 | Re: Wrong comment for ReplicationSlotCreate |