| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse |
| Date: | 2022-04-15 16:40:39 |
| Message-ID: | 1650836.1650040839@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 8:14 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> BTW, before I forget: the wording of this log message is just awful.
>> [ so how about ]
>> "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?
Seems all right to me; do you have a better suggestion?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ajin Cherian | 2022-04-15 16:40:53 | Re: deparsing utility commands |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-04-15 16:36:52 | Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse |