MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALDaNm3RxGcD4cDAV5Q0_A4n06F3+AAMpxiyND9Zn0dB86hFmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHut+PtCB9v7D3-vF=dJoZvG-9wUzVrX6P1KOyb2dHgqV3j6Eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALDaNm1R5uFeNbEKUsdyuAKp=MxZhj8=DJ3UJK67as4LBW9fAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHut+PsiMLTxOnHLFYbccjL=RY1Ke7xRZOcNLQX51Sv4nUG3qA@mail.gmail.com> <CALDaNm1_v-+Y3rPYS_c9DRNJGui66LHuc1vAq1d95=y8EiqDkg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALDaNm1_v-+Y3rPYS_c9DRNJGui66LHuc1vAq1d95=y8EiqDkg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 14:43:34 +0530
Message-ID: <CANhcyEXvkLf76k4vJVEH68-aWM5yz2AHLtpQwp39ZP2uZtS5Zg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Documentation update of wal_retrieve_retry_interval to mention
 table sync worker
To: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, 
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANhcyEXvkLf76k4vJVEH68-aWM5yz2AHLtpQwp39ZP2uZtS5Zg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 at 12:33, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 at 08:47, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vignesh,
> >
> > Some review comments for your v2 patch.
> >
> > ======
> > doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml
> >
> > AFAICT the only difference you made is changing:
> > FROM "a special kind of apply process"
> > TO "a special kind of table synchronization worker process".
> >
> > There is only ONE kind of tablesync process, so I think saying "a
> > special kind of table synchronization worker process" seems
> > misleading. I also thought maybe it is better to mention that this is
> > PER table.
> >
> > SUGGESTION:
> > ... a special table synchronization worker process per table.
>
> Thanks, the updated v3 version patch has the changes for the same.
>
 Hi Vignesh,

I reviewed the v3 patch. And it looks good to me.

Thanks and Regards,
Shlok Kyal