Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)

On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 4:02 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 10:07 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > At Tue, 7 Feb 2023 09:10:01 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 6:03 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > 5b.
> > > > Since there are no translator considerations here why not write the
> > > > second error like:
> > > >
> > > > errmsg("%d ms is outside the valid range for parameter
> > > > \"min_apply_delay\" (%d .. %d)",
> > > > result, 0, PG_INT32_MAX))
> > > >
> > >
> > > I see that existing usage in the code matches what the patch had
> > > before this comment. See below and similar usages in the code.
> > > if (start <= 0)
> > > ereport(ERROR,
> > > (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
> > > errmsg("invalid value for parameter \"%s\": %d",
> > > "start", start)));
> >
> > The same errmsg text occurs mamy times in the tree. On the other hand
> > the pointed message is the only one. I suppose Peter considered this
> > aspect.
> >
> > # "%d%s%s is outside the valid range for parameter \"%s\" (%d .. %d)"
> > # also appears just once
> >
> > As for me, it seems to me a good practice to do that regadless of the
> > number of duplicates to (semi)mechanically avoid duplicates.
> >
> > (But I believe I would do as Peter suggests by myself for the first
> > cut, though:p)
> >
>
> Personally, I would prefer consistency. I think we can later start a
> new thread to change the existing message and if there is a consensus
> and value in the same then we could use the same style here as well.
>

Of course, if there is a convention then we should stick to it.

My understanding was that (string literal) message parameters are
specified separately from the message format string primarily as an
aid to translators. That makes good sense for parameters with names
that are also English words (like "start" etc), but for non-word
parameters like "min_apply_delay" there is no such ambiguity in the
first place.

Anyway, I am fine with it being written either way.

------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia