MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <177609278737.403059.14174275013090471947@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <CAKFQuwZ86BE49-gzFunuu=u1ieT+T6q900=1Cx=vuO9Aqv9kcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1LR_MjZuV31r-MOqno9-Kr0mA9zas2cxZtE=+X3RUYXbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwbHjB6EEdp6mmaUt4bCTYrYUdvEr44vVqhdT0OD4Z+3Qg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKFQuwbHjB6EEdp6mmaUt4bCTYrYUdvEr44vVqhdT0OD4Z+3Qg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 10:43:52 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAA4eK1+dR-sEGM+oC7H_-7PrBJBcdM2o5-eS6JrkMBJ0FOA54Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Logical Replication upgrade
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: "mimidatabase@gmail.com" <mimidatabase@gmail.com>,
	"pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1%2BdR-sEGM%2BoC7H_-7PrBJBcdM2o5-eS6JrkMBJ0FOA54Q%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 8:59=E2=80=AFAM David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2026, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 9:25=E2=80=AFPM David G. Johnston
>> <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 7:52=E2=80=AFAM PG Doc comments form <noreply@=
postgresql.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>> >>
>> >> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/logical-replication-upgrade.=
html
>> >> Description:
>> >>
>> >> Hello there,
>> >>
>> >> I don't know if it's me but I find this sentence quite confusing in i=
ts
>> >> current wording:
>> >> All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., there are no slots=
 whose
>> >> pg_replication_slots.conflicting is not true.
>> >>
>> >> The prerequisite is that no replication slot has conflicting=3Dtrue r=
ight?
>> >> So this sentence (the i.e. part) suggests the opposite, as per my
>> >> understanding.
>> >>
>> >> Here is the link (29.13.1):
>> >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/logical-replication-upgrade.h=
tml#STEPS-TWO-NODE-CIRCULAR-LOGICAL-REPLICATION-CLUSTER:~:text=3Dthere%20ar=
e%20no%20slots%20whose%20pg_replication_slots.conflicting%20is%20not%20true
>> >>
>> >
>> > You are correct.  Usage of a double-negative should be avoided as a ma=
tter of style, but in this case it actually resolves to an untrue statement=
.
>> >
>> > https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/7fdeaf5774d05245e82632e763=
665ff62db5598e
>> >
>> > I've copied the committer for this.  Removing the "not" is simple enou=
gh; though writing in the negative sense,
>> >
>>
>> How about: "All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e., there
>> are no slots whose pg_replication_slots.conflicting is false."?
>
>
> That is the same backwards outcome.  You only replaced =E2=80=9Cnot true=
=E2=80=9D with =E2=80=9Cfalse=E2=80=9D (same meaning) but didn=E2=80=99t ch=
ange the =E2=80=9Cno slots=E2=80=9D phrasing.
>

Right, I got confused.

> You can write either?
>
> No slots are true (conflicting)
> All slots are false (not conflicting)
>
> I prefer the second, and the fact your attempted fix didn=E2=80=99t actua=
lly fix things suggests that rephrasing both of these to =E2=80=9Call slots=
 are=E2=80=9D is better.
>

So, how about: "All slots on the old cluster must be usable, i.e.,
their pg_replication_slots.conflicting is false."?

--=20
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.