> On Feb 5, 2020, at 7:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2020-Feb-05, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> It is possible that one might not understand how this option works by >> reading the already existing text in docs, but I think writing in a >> different language the same thing also doesn't seem advisable. I >> think if we want to explain it better, then maybe a succinct example >> at the end of the page might be helpful. > > For reference, the complete varlistentry is: > > <term><literal>REFRESH PUBLICATION</literal></term> > <listitem> > <para> > Fetch missing table information from publisher. This will start > replication of tables that were added to the subscribed-to publications > since the last invocation of <command>REFRESH PUBLICATION</command> or > since <command>CREATE SUBSCRIPTION</command>. <!-- [2] --> > </para> > > <para> > <replaceable>refresh_option</replaceable> specifies additional options > for the > refresh operation. The supported options are: > > <variablelist> > <varlistentry> > <term><literal>copy_data</literal> (<type>boolean</type>)</term> > <listitem> > <para> > Specifies whether the existing data in the publications that are > being subscribed to should be copied once the replication starts. > The default is <literal>true</literal>. <!-- [1] --> > </para> > </listitem> > </varlistentry> > </variablelist> > </para> > </listitem> > > I tend to agree with David that this is ambiguous enough to warrant a > few words. Maybe his proposed wording is too verbose; how about just > adding "(Previously subscribed tables are not copied.)" where the [1] > appears? Alternatively, we could add "Tables that were already present > in the subscription are not modified in any way." where [2] appears, but > that seems less clear to me. > > An example would not be bad if it showed that existing data is not > copied. But examples are actually just syntactical examples, so you'd > have to resort to a comment explaining that existing tables are not > copied by the shown syntax. You might as well just add the words in the > reference docs …
I would be happy with the suggestion [1]; it would have clarified my specific question. Thanks, David
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
