| From: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahila(dot)syed(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys |
| Date: | 2023-04-08 04:17:48 |
| Message-ID: | 870f185a-26a6-7148-a85e-44745fe45008@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/8/23 12:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-04-08 09:15:05 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> The new approach for invalidation looks clean. BTW, I see minor
>> inconsistency in the following two error messages (errmsg):
>
> Thanks for checking.
>
>
>> if (MyReplicationSlot->data.invalidated == RS_INVAL_WAL)
>> ereport(ERROR,
>> (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
>> errmsg("can no longer get changes from replication slot \"%s\"",
>> NameStr(MyReplicationSlot->data.name)),
>> errdetail("This slot has been invalidated because it exceeded the
>> maximum reserved size.")));
>>
>> if (MyReplicationSlot->data.invalidated != RS_INVAL_NONE)
>> ereport(ERROR,
>> (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
>> errmsg("cannot read from logical replication slot \"%s\"",
>> NameStr(MyReplicationSlot->data.name)),
>> errdetail("This slot has been invalidated because it was conflicting
>> with recovery.")));
>>
>> Won't it be better to keep the same errmsg in the above two cases?
>
> Probably - do you have a preference? I think the former is a bit better?
+1 for the former, though perhaps "receive" instead of "get?"
Jonathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-04-08 04:20:14 | Re: longfin missing gssapi_ext.h |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-04-08 04:16:14 | Re: Partial aggregates pushdown |