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

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  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