Re: Documentation update of wal_retrieve_retry_interval to mention table sync worker

Hi Vignesh,

Some review comments for your v2 patch.

======
doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml

1.
     <para>
      The initial data in existing subscribed tables are snapshotted and
-     copied in a parallel instance of a special kind of apply process.
-     This process will create its own replication slot and copy the existing
-     data.  As soon as the copy is finished the table contents will become
-     visible to other backends.  Once existing data is copied, the worker
-     enters synchronization mode, which ensures that the table is brought
-     up to a synchronized state with the main apply process by streaming
-     any changes that happened during the initial data copy using standard
-     logical replication.  During this synchronization phase, the changes
-     are applied and committed in the same order as they happened on the
-     publisher.  Once synchronization is done, control of the
-     replication of the table is given back to the main apply process where
-     replication continues as normal.
+     copied in a parallel instance of a special kind of table synchronization
+     worker process. This process will create its own replication slot and copy
+     the existing data.  As soon as the copy is finished the table
contents will
+     become visible to other backends.  Once existing data is copied,
the worker
+     enters synchronization mode, which ensures that the table is brought up to
+     a synchronized state with the main apply process by streaming any changes
+     that happened during the initial data copy using standard logical
+     replication.  During this synchronization phase, the changes are applied
+     and committed in the same order as they happened on the publisher.  Once
+     synchronization is done, control of the replication of the table is given
+     back to the main apply process where replication continues as normal.
     </para>

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.

(e.g. please see attached diff)

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia