On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 2:06 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 4:06 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
> > No, I meant to say that the description didn't looked any better to me
> > even after your 0001 patch. The second paragraph started immediately
> > in the next line which do
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 4:06 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
...
>
> No, I meant to say that the description didn't looked any better to me
> even after your 0001 patch. The second paragraph started immediately
> in the next line which doesn't make it look any better. If we really
> want to make it look b
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 4:04 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:10 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> ...
> > The change in 0001 looks odd after seeing it in HTML format. We should
> > either add one empty line between two paragraphs otherwise it doesn't
> > appear good. Did you see mu
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:10 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
...
> The change in 0001 looks odd after seeing it in HTML format. We should
> either add one empty line between two paragraphs otherwise it doesn't
> appear good. Did you see multi-paragraphs in any other column
> definitions?
>
> For the 0002
On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 12:05 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
>
> I've had a go at rewording this paragraph in the 0002 patch.
>
The change in 0001 looks odd after seeing it in HTML format. We should
either add one empty line between two paragraphs otherwise it doesn't
appear good. Did you see multi-parag
Hi hackers.
This thread proposes to improve the readability of the
'inactive_since' field description (see pg_replication_slots system
view).
No changes to any facts, just the wording.
The current description looks like this:
--
The time when the slot became inactive. NULL if the slot is cur
