| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Improvement in log message of logical replication worker |
| Date: | 2017-05-20 04:58:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20170520045804.hd6rnupexvabbnq2@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Umm, just skimming here -- this patch shows some LOG messages using
elog() rather than ereport(), which seems bogus to me.
Also:
"logical replication table synchronization worker for subscription \"%s\", table \"%s\" has started"
surely there is a more convenient name than "logical replication table
synchronization worker" for this process? I think just getting rid of
the words "logical replication" there would be sufficient, since we
don't have the concept of "table synchronization worker" in any other
context.
More generally, the overall wording of this message seems a bit off.
How about something along the lines of
"starting synchronization for table \"%s\" in subscription \"%s\""
?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-05-20 06:25:32 | Re: Re: proposal - using names as primary names of plpgsql function parameters instead $ based names |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2017-05-20 04:20:10 | Re: Improvement in log message of logical replication worker |