| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com, sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: more descriptive message for process termination due to max_slot_wal_keep_size |
| Date: | 2022-09-29 17:31:00 |
| Message-ID: | 332715.1664472660@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> At Wed, 28 Sep 2022 16:30:37 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote in
>> I think you should leave the primary message alone and add a DETAIL,
>> as the first version of the patch did.
> So I'm going to change the mssage as:
> LOG: terminating process %d to release replication slot \"%s\"
> DETAIL: The slot's restart_lsn %X/%X exceeds the limit by %lld bytes.
> HINT: You might need to increase max_slot_wal_keep_size.
> LOG: invalidating *replication* slot \"%s\"
> DETAILS: (ditto)
> HINTS: (ditto)
I thought the latter was a little *too* short; the primary message
should at least give you some clue why that happened, even if it
doesn't offer all the detail. After some thought I changed it to
LOG: invalidating obsolete replication slot \"%s\"
and pushed it that way.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-09-29 17:35:20 | Re: Refactor UnpinBuffer() |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-09-29 17:27:11 | Re: Use pg_pwritev_with_retry() instead of write() in dir_open_for_write() to avoid partial writes? |