Hi, On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 10:43:14AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 9:14 AM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 5:47 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > ---- > > > > > > To summarize, the current description wrongly describes the field as a > > > time duration: > > > "The time since the slot has become inactive." > > > > > > I suggest replacing it with: > > > "The slot has been inactive since this time." > > > > > > > +1 for the change. If I had read the document without knowing about > > the patch, I too would have interpreted it as a duration. > > > > The suggested change looks good to me as well. I'll wait for a day or > two before pushing to see if anyone thinks otherwise.
I'm not 100% convinced the current wording is confusing because: - the field type is described as a "timestamptz". - there is no duration unit in the wording (if we were to describe a duration, we would probably add an unit to it, like "The time (in s)..."). That said, if we want to highlight that this is not a duration, what about? "The time (not duration) since the slot has become inactive." Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
