Re: 9.4 documentation: duplicate paragraph in logical decoding example

Hi,

while reading the logical decoding docs, I came across a duplicated
paragraph in doc/src/sgml/logicaldecoding.sgml - in the current
master branch, lines 108 to 115 are the same as lines 117 to 124.
I've attached a patch which removes the second instance of that
paragraph.
In case it is intended to demonstrate that the changes in the stream
were not consumed by pg_logical_slot_peek_changes(), the comment
in line 117 should be removed, or reworded like "the changes have
not been consumed by the previous command", just to avoid making
it look like that paragraph had been duplicated by accident :)

Regards,
Christoph

--
Spare Space

On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Christoph Moench-Tegeder
<cmt(at)burggraben(dot)net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while reading the logical decoding docs, I came across a duplicated
> paragraph in doc/src/sgml/logicaldecoding.sgml - in the current
> master branch, lines 108 to 115 are the same as lines 117 to 124.
> I've attached a patch which removes the second instance of that
> paragraph.
> In case it is intended to demonstrate that the changes in the stream
> were not consumed by pg_logical_slot_peek_changes(),

I didn't write that text, but I think that's the reason why the same
texts exist.

> reworded like "the changes have
> not been consumed by the previous command", just to avoid making
> it look like that paragraph had been duplicated by accident :)

I'm OK with this.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

On 2014-07-07 12:50:17 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Christoph Moench-Tegeder
> <cmt(at)burggraben(dot)net> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > while reading the logical decoding docs, I came across a duplicated
> > paragraph in doc/src/sgml/logicaldecoding.sgml - in the current
> > master branch, lines 108 to 115 are the same as lines 117 to 124.
> > I've attached a patch which removes the second instance of that
> > paragraph.
> > In case it is intended to demonstrate that the changes in the stream
> > were not consumed by pg_logical_slot_peek_changes(),
>
> I didn't write that text, but I think that's the reason why the same
> texts exist.

It was me... I was being cute^Wtired^Wuhhh and thought the duplicated
content would demonstrate that nothing has happened due to the decoding
stream.
But since you're now the second person confused by it I guess we better
rephrase it.

> > reworded like "the changes have
> > not been consumed by the previous command", just to avoid making
> > it look like that paragraph had been duplicated by accident :)
>
> I'm OK with this.

Care to submit a patch for it Christoph?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

## Andres Freund (andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com):

> Care to submit a patch for it Christoph?

There it is.

Regards,
Christoph

--
Spare Space

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Christoph Moench-Tegeder
<cmt(at)burggraben(dot)net> wrote:
> ## Andres Freund (andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com):
>
>> Care to submit a patch for it Christoph?
>
> There it is.

Thanks! Applied.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao