On Mon, Jan 1, 2024 at 5:17 PM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 1, 2024 at 4:30 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 1, 2024 at 12:32 PM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > PFA v3 after changing column name to 'conflict_reason' > > > > > > > Few minor comments: > > =================== > > 1. > > + <para> > > + <literal>wal_removed</literal> = required WAL has been removed. > > + </para> > > + </listitem> > > + <listitem> > > + <para> > > + <literal>rows_removed</literal> = required rows have been > > removed. > > + </para> > > + </listitem> > > + <listitem> > > + <para> > > + <literal>wal_level_insufficient</literal> = wal_level > > insufficient on the primary server. > > + </para> > > > > Should we use the same style to write the description as we are using > > for the wal_status column? For example, <literal>wal_removed</literal> > > means that the required WAL has been removed. > > > > 2. > > + <para> > > + The reason of logical slot's conflict with recovery. > > > > My grammar tool says it should be: "The reason for the logical slot's > > conflict with recovery." > > > > Other than these minor comments, the patch looks good to me. > > PFA v4 which addresses the doc comments.
Please ignore the previous patch and PFA new v4 (v4_2). The only change from the earlier v4 is the subject correction in commit msg. thanks Shveta
v4_2-0001-Track-conflict_reason-in-pg_replication_slots.patch
Description: Binary data
