Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict?
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1+sC1t-GSLQqZYT9tbyjW1kg2V5Rgn=POuDPFywrapoTQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict? (shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 1, 2024 at 12:32 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@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. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: