From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Replication slots and footguns |
Date: | 2014-03-14 00:09:25 |
Message-ID: | 532248B5.4070207@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/13/2014 05:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 03/13/2014 01:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I think "in use" is just as clear as active, and I think the text
>>> Andres proposed previously reads a whole lot more nicely than this:
>>>
>>> replication slot "%s" is in use by another backend
>>
>> Then we should change the column name in the pg_stat_replication_slots
>> view to "in_use". My point is that the error message and the diagnostic
>> view should use the same word, or we're needlessly confusing our users.
>
> I see. That's an interesting point....
As I said earlier, the fact that the current error message says "active"
and the column in pg_stat_replication_slots is called "active" meant I
knew *immediately* where to look. So I'm speaking from personal experience.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-03-14 00:28:16 | Re: Replication slots and footguns |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-03-14 00:01:26 | Re: Replication slots and footguns |