Subject: Re: Fix GetWALAvailability function code comments for WALAVAIL_REMOVED return value

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 18:43:52 -0500

sirisha chamarthi <[email-masked]> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:59 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>> In short, the proposed fix alone seems fine to me. If we want to show
>> further details, I would add a bit as follows.
>> 
>> | * * WALAVAIL_REMOVED means it has been removed. A replication stream on
>> | *   a slot with this LSN cannot continue.  Note that the affected
>> | *   processes have been terminated by checkpointer, too.

> Thanks for your comments! Attached the patch with your suggestions.

Pushed with a bit of additional wordsmithing.  I thought "have been"
was a bit too strong of an assertion considering that this function
does not pay any attention to the actual state of any processes,
so I made it say "should have been".

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 09:47:47 +0900 (JST)

At Thu, 19 Jan 2023 18:43:52 -0500, Tom Lane <[email-masked]> wrote in 
> Pushed with a bit of additional wordsmithing.  I thought "have been"

Thanks!

> so I made it say "should have been".

I think you're correct here.

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center