From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix various possible problems with synchronous replication. |
Date: | 2011-03-17 17:55:20 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinMbGrZyVzw7+wwfHJN7kfEpxkgXQ+19ZkGpC6u@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> errmsg("canceling the wait for replication and terminating connection
> due to administrator command")
> errmsg("canceling wait for synchronous replication due to user request")
>
> Should that first one then also say "synchronous replication"?
I could go either way. Clearly if it's asynchronous replication, we
wouldn't be waiting. But you're certainly right that we should be
consistent.
> 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?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-03-17 17:56:36 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-17 17:52:56 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-03-17 17:56:36 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-17 17:52:56 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |