From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix various possible problems with synchronous replication. |
Date: | 2011-03-17 17:59:29 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=k7=gopZmdyvL_YvnGtaiMABhgPjC5=D9kXNns@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 17 March 2011 17:55, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>> errdetail("The transaction has already been committed locally but
>> might have not been replicated to the standby.")));
>> errdetail("The transaction has committed locally, but may not have
>> replicated to the standby.")));
>>
>> Could we have these saying precisely the same thing?
>
> Yeah. Which is better?
Personally I prefer the 2nd. It reads better somehow.
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-17 18:04:38 | pgsql: Add pause_at_recovery_target to recovery.conf.sample; improve do |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-03-17 17:56:36 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-03-17 18:25:51 | Re: why is max standby delay only 35 minutes? |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-03-17 17:56:36 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |