Suggested Feedback for PostgreSQL Documentation

[PG Doc comments form]

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/ddl-default.html
Description:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/ddl-default.html

uggested Feedback for PostgreSQL Documentation:

In section 5.2 where the nextval() function is introduced, it would be
helpful if the documentation provided a more complete and practical example.
Specifically:

The documentation should clearly mention that the sequence (e.g.,
products_product_no_seq) must be explicitly created before using it in a
CREATE TABLE statement, otherwise the SQL will fail.

Additionally, examples should include full, runnable SQL snippets that users
can execute directly in psql without needing to fill in missing parts.

For teaching and learning purposes, it is important to provide not only the
CREATE TABLE statement but also the necessary CREATE SEQUENCE and INSERT
statements, along with sample output to demonstrate how values are generated
by the sequence.

This would greatly improve the clarity and usability of the documentation
for learners and practitioners alike.

Re: Document reopen of output file via SIGHUP in pg_recvlogical

[Fujii Masao]

On 2025/07/18 16:15, Shinya Kato wrote:

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 12:33 PM Fujii Masao
 wrote:




On 2025/07/18 11:35, Shinya Kato wrote:

On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 4:48 PM Fujii Masao  wrote:


Hi,

pg_recvlogical continuously writes to the file specified with the --file option,
which means the output file can grow indefinitely. To manage file size,
some users may want to rotate the output periodically.

While reviewing the source code to find the way to rotate the file, I noticed
that pg_recvlogical reopens the output file when it receives a SIGHUP signal.
This makes file rotation possible: we can rename the current output file and
then send a SIGHUP to pg_recvlogical, which will close the renamed file and
open a new one with the same original name.

This is a useful feature, but it's currently undocumented. So I'd like to
apply the attached patch that adds this information to the documentation.
Thought?


Agreed.
I have confirmed the behavior and I think it should be documented.

Your patch looks good, except that you should use "specified by"
instead of "given with" to be consistent with the other documents.


Thanks for the review! I've updated the patch as suggested.
The revised version is attached.

Unless there are any objections, I will commit and back-patch it to v13.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation


Thanks for updating the patch. LGTM.


I've pushed the patch. Thanks!

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation