Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 8:14 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> BTW, before I forget: the wording of this log message is just awful.
> On first sight, I thought that it meant that we'd computed OldestXmin
> a second time and discovered that it advanced by 26 xids while the VACUUM
> was running.

> "removable cutoff: %u, which was %d xids old when operation ended\n"

How the output appears when placed right before the output describing
how VACUUM advanced relfrozenxid is an important consideration. I want
the format and wording that we use to imply a relationship between
these two things. Right now, that other line looks like this:

"new relfrozenxid: %u, which is %d xids ahead of previous value\n"

Do you think that this juxtaposition works well?

> Also, is it really our practice to spell XID in lower-case in
> user-facing messages?

There are examples of both. This could easily be changed to "XIDs".

-- 
Peter Geoghegan