Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 07:31:26AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
>> I think the complaint is that someone seeing the behavior in the wild comes
>> to
>> this order-of-operations and doesn't see that the observed behavior is
>> documented.
> How is the attached patch?
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 07:31:26AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 7:19 AM Laurenz Albe wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2023-07-07 at 07:36 +, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> > i have a discussion in pgsql-b...@lists.postgresql.org about this and it
> is
> >
On Wed, 2023-09-06 at 16:53 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I slightly modified your patch and applied it back to PG 11 since all
> supported Postgres versions have the same behavior. Thanks.
Thanks for picking it up.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 07:53:36AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-07-21 at 04:56 +, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
> >
> > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/functions-formatting.html
> > Description:
> >
>
On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 09:02:02AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 06.09.23 03:42, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > There are other cases in our docs where we call something a standby and
> > mean only a physical standby/replica. Should these be clarified?
>
> When "hot standby" was added, I argued
On 06.09.23 03:42, Bruce Momjian wrote:
There are other cases in our docs where we call something a standby and
mean only a physical standby/replica. Should these be clarified?
When "hot standby" was added, I argued that it's not really a standby if
it's hot. The response was that this is
