| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: doc: remove verbiage about "receiving" data from rep. slots |
| Date: | 2025-11-14 14:25:20 |
| Message-ID: | pexmenhqptw5h4ma4qasz3cvjtynivxprqifgghdjtmkxdig2g@djg7bk2p6pts |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
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.
> The reason I liked the new wording is that the slot is only a small part
> of the receiving path. Almost by definition, the slot is specified as
> _part_ of the connection parameter --- it is not the connection
> parameter.
I don't know what that has to do with anything.
> Can you think of better wording that would be clearer than what we had?
I don't see any need to revise the wording of the changed sections.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2025-11-14 14:49:02 | Re: pgsql: doc: remove verbiage about "receiving" data from rep. slots |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2025-11-14 14:12:33 | Re: pgsql: doc: remove verbiage about "receiving" data from rep. slots |