Re: Reword messages using "as" instead of "because"
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
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: 2025-09-19T05:50:35Z
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 →
-
Improve few errdetail messages introduced in commit 0d48d393d46.
- 8aac5923a361 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Resume conflict-relevant data retention automatically.
- 0d48d393d465 19 (unreleased) cited
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 9:13 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes: > > 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? > > I think "has not" is clearer, or maybe you should say "did not catch > up with..." Either way, that sounds like a pure statement of fact > whereas "could not" has some overtones of assigning blame. > Thanks for your inputs. I've pushed after making discussed changes. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.