Re: pgsql: doc: remove verbiage about "receiving" data from rep. slots

On 2025-11-14 10:46:30 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 09:55:37AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2025-11-14 09:49:02 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 09:25:20AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On 2025-11-14 09:12:33 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 09:05:07AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2025-11-14 09:02:12 -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2025-11-14 13:56:06 +0000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > > > > > doc: remove verbiage about "receiving" data from rep. slots
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The slots are just LSN markers, not something to receive from.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think this is wrong. Logical slots also preserve resources other than WAL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also think that the complaint about slots not being something to receive
> > > > > > from is simply wrong for logical slots.
> > > > >
> > > > > Uh, can you clarify since I can't find details on what they preserve.
> > > >
> > > > Slots (physical ones can, logical ones always do), prevent row cleanup on the
> > > > primary.
> > >
> > > I see your point. How is the attached patch? The link right after the
> > > modified text talks only about WAL retention, so I think we need
> > > something in this sentence to say we do more than WAL retention for
> > > logical replication slots.
> >
> > It's less wrong, but I don't think this is the right place to add more
> > documentation about what replication slots do.
>
> Patch applied. I can keep improving it as we get more ideas.

I'm rather baffled by the process here. You pushed a patch, without any
review, which also wasn't previously posted publicly, that made things
worse. Then, after you got pushback on that change, you posted another patch,
that got mildly negative feedback. Then you also pushed that change.