On 2024-Jan-16, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > Thanks for the patch. The wording looks good to me. However, I have > some comments on the placement of the note: > > 1. How about bundling this in a <note> </note> or <caution> </caution>?
Yeah, I considered this too, but I discarded the idea because my impression of <caution> and <note> was that they attract too much attention off the main text; it should be the other way around. But that's not really something for this patch to solve, and we use <caution> boxes in many other places and nobody complains about this. So I made it a <caution>. > 2. I think the better place for this note is at the end after the > "Similarly, <xref linkend="guc-hot-standby-feedback"/> on its own, > without" paragraph. It will then be like we introduce what replication > slot is and why it is better over other mechanisms to retain WAL and > then caution the users of it retaining WAL. Makes sense. I have pushed it. I made one other terminology change from "primary" to "primary server", but only in that subsection. We use "primary" as a standalone term extensively in other sections of this chapter, and I don't like it very much, but I didn't want to make this more invasive. Another thing I noticed is that we could change all (or most of) the <varname> tags to <xref linkend="guc-..."/>, but it's also a much larger change. Having (some of?) these variable names be links would be useful IMO. -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
