Re: Reword messages using "as" instead of "because"
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Reword messages using "as" instead of "because" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1+VwKRM80BKvT1gR1bbk-Sv4SH7AG6NQqe23_8txJs9bw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Reword messages using "as" instead of "because" (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Reword messages using "as" instead of "because"
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 8:56 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes: > > LGTM. Horiguchi-San, do let me know if you have suggestions here. I am > > planning to push this tomorrow. > > +1 for the first change, but for this: > > - ? errdetail("Retention is re-enabled as the apply process is advancing its xmin within the configuredmax_retention_duration of %u ms.", > + ? errdetail("Retention is re-enabled because the apply process can advance its xmin within theconfigured max_retention_duration of %u ms.", > > would it be better to say > > "Retention is re-enabled because the apply process was able to advance its xmin within the configured max_retention_durationof %u ms." > > If this isn't a statement that xmin has already been advanced, then > I'm not sure quite what it means. > xmin is not yet advanced. In this state, we ensured that the subscriber has caught up with the publisher and now the apply worker can start maintaining/advancing its xmin. > Also here: > > - : errdetail("Retention is re-enabled as max_retention_duration is set to unlimited.")); > + : errdetail("Retention is re-enabled because max_retention_duration is set to unlimited.")); > > I think maybe what is meant is > > "Retention is re-enabled because max_retention_duration has been set to unlimited." > > or you could say "has been changed to". We'd never have got to this > if max_retention_duration had been unlimited all along, correct? > Right, so will use your version. > Passing by mere grammatical issues ... the patch shows that only one > of these three cases is reached in the regression tests. Is that > a coverage gap that we should worry about? > We thought adding for one of these cases is sufficient to avoid increasing the test timing further. These are time sensitive tests as apply-worker on subscriber is dependent on actions of publisher, so we need wait logic. Otherwise, it seems doable to once again stop the retention and resume due to a non-zero value of max_retention_duration. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: