Hi, New wording works for me, thanks!
Bertrand Le sam. 8 avr. 2023, 08:26, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> a écrit : > Hi, > > On 2023-04-07 11:12:26 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > + <row> > > + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition"> > > + <structfield>confl_active_logicalslot</structfield> > <type>bigint</type> > > + </para> > > + <para> > > + Number of active logical slots in this database that have been > > + invalidated because they conflict with recovery (note that > inactive ones > > + are also invalidated but do not increment this counter) > > + </para></entry> > > + </row> > > </tbody> > > </tgroup> > > </table> > > This seems wrong to me. The counter is not for invalidated slots, it's for > recovery conflict interrupts. If phrased that way, the parenthetical would > be > unnecessary. > > I think something like > Number of uses of logical slots in this database that have been > canceled due to old snapshots or a too low <xref > linkend="guc-wal-level"/> > on the primary > > would work and fit with the documentation of the other fields? Reads a bit > stilted, but so do several of the other fields... > > Greetings, > > Andres Freund >
