Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys
От | Jonathan S. Katz |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 870f185a-26a6-7148-a85e-44745fe45008@postgresql.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/8/23 12:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2023-04-08 09:15:05 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> The new approach for invalidation looks clean. BTW, I see minor >> inconsistency in the following two error messages (errmsg): > > Thanks for checking. > > >> if (MyReplicationSlot->data.invalidated == RS_INVAL_WAL) >> ereport(ERROR, >> (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE), >> errmsg("can no longer get changes from replication slot \"%s\"", >> NameStr(MyReplicationSlot->data.name)), >> errdetail("This slot has been invalidated because it exceeded the >> maximum reserved size."))); >> >> if (MyReplicationSlot->data.invalidated != RS_INVAL_NONE) >> ereport(ERROR, >> (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE), >> errmsg("cannot read from logical replication slot \"%s\"", >> NameStr(MyReplicationSlot->data.name)), >> errdetail("This slot has been invalidated because it was conflicting >> with recovery."))); >> >> Won't it be better to keep the same errmsg in the above two cases? > > Probably - do you have a preference? I think the former is a bit better? +1 for the former, though perhaps "receive" instead of "get?" Jonathan
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: