On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 9:39 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>
> I don't like repeating the same thing for all new messages. So added
> separate para for the same and few other changes. See what do you
> think of the attached?
>
Pushed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 9:58 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 05:45:16PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:11 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > > Found that some documentation hasn't been updated for the changes made as
> > > part of
> > > streaming large in
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 05:45:16PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:11 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> > Found that some documentation hasn't been updated for the changes made as
> > part of
> > streaming large in-progress transactions. Attached a patch that adds the
> > missing
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 8:29 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 10:23 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
>>
>>
>> I didn't like this style because it is not descriptive enough. It is also
>> not a
>> style adopted by Postgres. I suggest to add something like "This field was
>> introduced in v
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 10:23 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> I didn't like this style because it is not descriptive enough. It is also
> not a
> style adopted by Postgres. I suggest to add something like "This field was
> introduced in version 2" or "This field is available since version 2"
> after t
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021, at 4:25 AM, Ajin Cherian wrote:
> Updated.
- Protocol version. Currently only version 1 is
- supported.
-
+ Protocol version. Currently versions 1 and
+ 2 are supported. The version 2
+ is supported only for server versions 14 and above, and
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 8:19 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> 1.
> I felt that this protocol documentation needs to include something
> like a "Since: 2" notation (e.g. see how the javadoc API [1] does it)
> otherwise with more message types and more protocol versions it is
> quickly going to become too
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 12:56 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 3:49 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 10:15 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:11 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> > 3.
> > There is inconsistent wording for what seems to be th
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 3:49 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 10:15 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:11 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> 3.
> There is inconsistent wording for what seems to be the same condition.
> e.g.1 The existing documentation [2] says "Xid of
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 10:15 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:11 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Found that some documentation hasn't been updated for the changes made as
> > part of
> > streaming large in-progress transactions. Attached a patch that adds the
> > mi
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:11 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Found that some documentation hasn't been updated for the changes made as
> part of
> streaming large in-progress transactions. Attached a patch that adds the
> missing changes. Let me know if anything more needs to be added or any
Hi,
Found that some documentation hasn't been updated for the changes made as
part of
streaming large in-progress transactions. Attached a patch that adds the
missing changes. Let me know if anything more needs to be added or any
comments on this change.
regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia
12 matches
Mail list logo
