Re: Reword messages using "as" instead of "because"
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Reword messages using "as" instead of "because" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1+tUbxMC3zpaC0TZkU24ym=LOdMTxN6wczeB=ngoc-0+w@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 10:22 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes: > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 8:56 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> +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." > > > 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. > > Hm, so what has max_retention_duration got to do with it? > It is the duration used to avoid subscriber being too much behind publisher (and hence leading to retaining dead tuples for conflict detection for a very long time). If the apply worker on the subscriber is not caught up for this (max_retention_duration) duration then we stop retaining dead tuples. Similarly, when the apply worker is able to catch up before max_retention_duration is elapsed, we will resume retention. > That > is, should the message just read > > "Retention is re-enabled because the apply process can advance its xmin." > or better > "Retention is re-enabled because the apply process has caught up with the publisher." > > This now reminds me of a point that I meant to make in my previous > reply and forgot: this whole business of "advancing xmin" is > implementation jargon. > Yeah, this sounds clear but shall we consider using max_retention_duration like: "Retention is re-enabled because the apply process has caught up with the publisher within the configured max_retention_duration.". We can have a single message if we don't want to specify the value of max_retention_duration or simply skip adding max_retention_duration. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: