| 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: | 2025-09-19 03:43:34 |
| Message-ID: | 2044143.1758253414@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:
> We have a similar message for stop retention. I feel it would be good
> to mention that as a reason, so users can increase it. I could think
> of two alternatives for stop message based on above suggestion:
> "Retention is stopped because the apply process has not caught up with
> the publisher within the configured max_retention_duration."
> "Retention is stopped because the apply process could not catch up
> with the publisher within the configured max_retention_duration."
> Do you have any preference?
I think "has not" is clearer, or maybe you should say "did not catch
up with..." Either way, that sounds like a pure statement of fact
whereas "could not" has some overtones of assigning blame.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chao Li | 2025-09-19 03:50:00 | Re: encode/decode support for base64url |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-09-19 03:26:10 | Re: Reword messages using "as" instead of "because" |