| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reword messages using "as" instead of "because" |
| Date: | 2025-09-18 12:11:33 |
| Message-ID: | 1888664.1758197493@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Yeah, this sounds clear but shall we consider using
> max_retention_duration like: "Retention is re-enabled because the
> apply process has caught up with the publisher within the configured
> max_retention_duration.". We can have a single message if we don't
> want to specify the value of max_retention_duration or simply skip
> adding max_retention_duration.
That wording sounds good to me. I think you could leave out
the mention of max_retention_duration, but I won't fight if
people prefer to include it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-09-18 12:25:37 | Re: someone else to do the list of acknowledgments |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Sharma | 2025-09-18 12:01:11 | Re: Clear logical slot's 'synced' flag on promotion of standby |