> On Jan 5, 2026, at 13:51, Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 9:46 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dear Daniil, Chao, >> >> I was the main author of 1462aad2. It is enough to remove outdated comments >> atop >> the definition. In other words, your patch looks good to me. >> >> If needed, we can also notify developers that the two-phase option should >> not be >> altered while decoding WAL records. In logical replication, we ensure that >> the >> subscription is disabled and there are no apply workers. However, I don't >> think >> such comments can be atop the ReplicationSlotCreate(). Maybe around >> ReplicationSlotAlter(), but it may be out of scope of the initial motivation. >> > > I think it is better if we add some comments atop > ReplicationSlotAlter() as you are suggesting. What do you think of the > attached? > > -- > With Regards, > Amit Kapila. > <v1_improve_alter_slot_comments.patch>
Hi Amit,
While reviewing your change, I find the other typo in slot.c:
```
- /* Check if the slot exits with the given name. */
+ /* Check if the slot exists with the given name. */
s = SearchNamedReplicationSlot(name, false);
if (s == NULL || !s->in_use)
```
“Exits” and “exists” have totally different meanings, thus might lead to
misunderstanding. Attached is a trivial diff to fix that.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
slot_typo.diff
Description: Binary data
