Horton

Re: Reword messages using "as" instead of "because"

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-09-19T03:26:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Improve few errdetail messages introduced in commit 0d48d393d46.

  2. Resume conflict-relevant data retention automatically.

On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 5:41 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> > 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.
>
> That wording sounds good to me.  I think you could leave out
> the mention of max_retention_duration, but I won't fight if
> people prefer to include it.
>

We have a similar message for stop retention. I feel it would be good
to mention that as a reason, so users can increase it. I could think
of two alternatives for stop message based on above suggestion:
"Retention is stopped because the apply process has not caught up with
the publisher within the configured max_retention_duration."
"Retention is stopped because the apply process could not catch up
with the publisher within the configured max_retention_duration."

Do you have any preference? The first one resembles a similar resume
message and second is probably what I would have used if there was no
corresponding resume message.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.