From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Should we improve "PID XXXX is not a PostgreSQL server process" warning for pg_terminate_backend(<<postmaster_pid>>)? |
Date: | 2021-11-17 19:37:36 |
Message-ID: | 2737170.1637177856@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 03:59:59PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
>> I took a look at this patch. I have a few comments.
>>
>> + ereport(WARNING,
>> + (errmsg("signalling postmaster with PID %d is not allowed", pid)));
>>
>> I would say "signal postmaster PID 1234 is not allowed". It is not an
>> in-progress action.
> It's correct to say "signalling ... is not allowed", which means the same as
> "it is not allowed to signal ...".
Yeah, the grammar is fine as far as that goes. What reads awkwardly to me
is inclusion of "with PID %d" in the middle of the sentence. That seems
odd, not least because it leaves the impression that maybe it would've
been okay to signal some other postmaster with a different PID.
Frankly, I think the existing wording is fine and this patch adds
complication without making any useful improvement. We could maybe change
"is not a PostgresSQL server process" to "is not a PostgresSQL backend
process", but I wouldn't go further than that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2021-11-17 19:44:52 | pg_upgrade parallelism |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-11-17 19:19:20 | Re: Deficient error handling in pg_dump and pg_basebackup |