On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 6:25 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2022-Dec-07, samay sharma wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 11:12 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > OK. I copied the tablesync note back to config.sgml definition of > > > 'max_replication_slots' and removed the link as suggested. Frankly, I > > > also thought it is a bit strange that the max_replication_slots in the > > > “Sending Servers” section was describing this parameter for > > > “Subscribers”. OTOH, I did not want to split the definition in half so > > > instead, I’ve added another Subscriber <varlistentry> that just refers > > > back to this place. It looks like an improvement to me. > > > > Hmm, I agree this is a tricky scenario. However, to me, it seems odd to > > mention the parameter twice as this chapter of the docs just lists each > > parameter and describes them. So, I'd probably remove the reference to it > > in the subscriber section. We should describe it's usage in different > > places in the logical replication part of the docs (as we do). > > I agree this is tricky. However, because they essentially have > completely different behaviors on each side, and because we're > documenting each side separately, to me it makes more sense to document > each behavior separately, so I've split it. I also added mention at > each side that the other one exists. My rationale is that a user is > likely going to search for stuff to set on one side first, then for > stuff to set on the other side. So doing it this way maximizes > helpfulness (or so I hope anyway). I also added a separate index entry. >
LGTM. Thank you for pushing this. ------ Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia.
