On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Shulgin, Oleksandr <oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 28 January 2016 at 16:36, Shulgin, Oleksandr >> <oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> We should change also START_REPLICATION SLOT syntax document as follows? >>>> >>>> - <para><literal>START_REPLICATION SLOT >>>> <replaceable>slot_name</replaceable> LOGICAL >>>> <replaceable>options</replaceable></literal></para> >>>> + <para><literal>START_REPLICATION SLOT >>>> <replaceable>slot_name</replaceable> LOGICAL >>>> <replaceable>XXX/XXX</replaceable> >>>> (<replaceable>options</replaceable>)</literal></para> >>> >>> >>> If a committer would thinks so, I don't object. Though this one is >>> rather a detail for which the reader is already referred to >>> protocol-replication, while my fix was about a factual error. >>> >> >> I think it should be changed. I've already had people confused by this. >> >> Either that or remove the synopsis entirely, changing it to >> >> START_REPLICATION SLOT .... >> >> and linking to the protocol docs. Which might be better. > > I think it still makes sense to keep the LOGICAL, but hide the rest of the > details behind that ellipsis, so: > > START_REPLICATION SLOT slot_name LOGICAL ... > > Updated patch attached.
Okay, pushed. Thanks! Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
