Re: Documentation improvement patch

Dear Daniel,

Could you please provide your feedback on the last two points?
Once I have it, I will send the updated patch immediately to finalize 
the improvements.

Thank you,
Oleg

On 13.10.2025 13:51, Oleg wrote:
> Thank you for your feedback, Daniel.
> My thoughts are below:
> /- Change the definition of a replication slot. + Changes the 
> definition of a replication slot. Reading this page it seems we are 
> mixing tense in many places, some say "Change the" and "Read some" and 
> elsewhere we use "Drops the". Maybe a more holistic approach would be 
> better for this page to improve consistency? /I agree, let's add "s" in all cases for the sake of consistency.
>
> /- Not enabled by default because it is resource intensive. + Not 
> enabled by default because it is resource-intensive. We use both 
> spellings in multiple places, shouldn't all be changed?/
>
> Agreed, changing all instances to "resource-intensive".
>
> /- <command>COPY</command> and other file-access functions. + the 
> <command>COPY</command> command and file-access functions. ... - 
> <command>COPY</command> and other file-access functions. + the 
> <command>COPY</command> command and file-access functions. ... - 
> <command>COPY</command> and other functions which allow executing a + 
> the <command>COPY</command> command and functions, which allow 
> executing a I'm not sure about these, I think we use COPY without the 
> the "the COPY command" decoration in many places so I think it's more 
> consistent like this. /I actually think we should add the decoration here because "<command>COPY</command> and other file-access functions"
> sounds a bit confusing since COPY is not a file-access function and we seem to put it in the list. Even though I
> agree that everybody knows COPY is a command, not a function.
>
> /- to call functions defined in the standard internal library, by 
> using an + to call functions defined in the standard internal function 
> library by using an interface similar to their SQL signature. Isn't it 
> a bit redundant to say "internal function library" when we are already 
> talking about function definitions?/
>
> I agree that it may seem redundant, I added "function" here for the sake of consistency with lines 1829/1830 (if applied to the master branch)
> where the documentation mentions "standard internal*function* library".
>
> Please, let me know what you think of the last two points for me to send the updated patch.
>
> --
> Oleg Sibiryakov
> On 10.10.2025 10:15, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 10 Sep 2025, at 09:54, Oleg<o.sibiryakov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> I have prepared a patch containing some minor inconsistencies in the documentation. Please, take a look.
>>> I will be looking forward to your feedback.
>> Thanks for the patch, while most of these are obvious improvements I have a few
>> comments on some:
>>
>>
>> -       Change the definition of a replication slot.
>> +       Changes the definition of a replication slot.
>> Reading this page it seems we are mixing tense in many places, some say "Change
>> the" and "Read some" and elsewhere we use "Drops the".  Maybe a more holistic
>> approach would be better for this page to improve consistency?
>>
>>
>> -       Not enabled by default because it is resource intensive.
>> +       Not enabled by default because it is resource-intensive.
>> We use both spellings in multiple places, shouldn't all be changed?
>>
>>
>> -       <command>COPY</command> and other file-access functions.
>> +       the <command>COPY</command> command and file-access functions.
>>          ...
>> -       <command>COPY</command> and other file-access functions.
>> +       the <command>COPY</command> command and file-access functions.
>>          ...
>> -       <command>COPY</command> and other functions which allow executing a
>> +       the <command>COPY</command> command and functions, which allow executing a
>> I'm not sure about these, I think we use COPY without the the "the COPY
>> command" decoration in many places so I think it's more consistent like this.
>>
>>
>> -     to call functions defined in the standard internal library, by using an
>> +     to call functions defined in the standard internal function library by using an
>>        interface similar to their SQL signature.
>> Isn't it a bit redundant to say "internal function library" when we are already
>> talking about function definitions?
>>
>>> The patch shall be applied to the REL_18_STABLE branch.
>> As you mentioned downthread, this is also for master.  Our workflow is to
>> always apply to master and backpatch from there.
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Gustafsson
>>
>>
>>