| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeevan Ladhe <jeevanladhe(dot)os(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Make some xlogreader messages more accurate |
| Date: | 2023-03-02 08:19:52 |
| Message-ID: | 29eab0fe-5edb-5837-493b-73398844fa07@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 28.02.23 11:19, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
> +1 for the changes.
>
> >1. Why is "wanted >=%u" any better than "wanted at least %u"? IMO, the
> >wording as opposed to >= symbol in the user-facing messages works
> >better.
>
> I think I agree with Bharath on this: "wanted at least %u" sounds better
> for user error than "wanted >=%u".
I committed this with "at least", as suggested, and also changed
"wanted" to "expected", which matches the usual error message style better.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-03-02 08:21:55 | Re: Make some xlogreader messages more accurate |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-03-02 08:17:34 | Re: Show various offset arrays for heap WAL records |